cwsox Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 In the current (24 March) issue of the New Yorker, an article "The Prince: by Elsa Walsh is some of the most surprizing reading that I have done lately. The article is about Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi ambassador to the US, member of the Saud royal family by birth and marriage. Among other things, it reports: Lybia both before and after September 11th has been very helpful in going after al Queda. In fact in the late 90s Libya offered to assassinate bin Laden. The offer may never have reached Clinton, possibly not passed on by CIA chief Tenet. Libya has a long standing hatred of bin Laden. The Bushs have a long history of close personal relationships with the Saud royal family through Bandar, including holiday gatherings. In 1994 King Faud of Saudi Arabia and Clinton agreed to remove Saddam from power and plans were undertaken - but it is still as yet unknown why they did not proceed. Bush is very out of touch with the Palestinian-Israeli issue - in the words of a Pentagon senior official, "he doesn't know his stuff." Crown Prince Abdullah had to show pictures of dead Palestinian children to Bush to get Bush to see the other side of the issue. Cheney is seen as increasingly hostile to Mid East issues from the Mid East point of view. Cheney and Rice both mishandled some basic diplomacy that almost cost the US the support of Saudi Arabia in anything. It took a near shouting match between Powell and Bandar on the deck of the Crawford ranch to catch Bush's attention and realize that everything was being undeemiined beneath him. And Powell and Bendar are old racketball buddies from the 70s. Rumsfeld abandoned diplomacy with Abdullah going off on a thing about American weaponry rather than deal with a pressing issue to Saudi Arabia - the removal of Saddam. The Saudis have a longstanding hatred of Saddam and have long wanted to oust him - because they fear Saddam coveted their oil fields. The first Bush used Bandar as his intermediary to Saddam. Saddam played off Bush and Bandar with a presumed interest in Israel (which he evidently is not that interested in) while he was prpearing to invade Kuwait. Arafat was far more responsible for wrecking the last days peace initative of Clinton than anyone realized, even those who blamed Arafat underestimated how close it was to peace. (Side note not in the article - if anyone saw Clinton on Letterman on September 11th 2002 that would explain why Clinton went almost ballastic when Arafat's name came up.) That no matter what, the Saudis see no peace in the Middle East until the Israel-Palestine issue is settled. Bush has displayed some relevatory religious faith which is guiding him, inlcuding almost blowing everything with Abdullah by wanting to say Christian grace at meal. It would appear that if you can get Bush to get misty eyed he is more prone to moving in certain directions. The article also recounts other foibles of Bush 1, Bush 2, and Clinton diplomacy and gives a fascinating insight into how things work from a perspective that we rarely if ever see. As I read the article it was neither for nor against anything/anyone that we have arguing here, just fascinating insights into how things work - and who knew about Libya being so helpful on bin Laden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 can you post a link??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 In the current (24 March) issue of the New Yorker, an article "The Prince: by Elsa Walsh is some of the most surprizing reading that I have done lately. The article is about Prince Bandar bin Sultan, longtime Saudi ambassador to the US, member of the Saud royal family by birth and marriage. Among other things, it reports: Lybia both before and after September 11th has been very helpful in going after al Queda. In fact in the late 90s Libya offered to assassinate bin Laden. The offer may never have reached Clinton, possibly not passed on by CIA chief Tenet. Libya has a long standing hatred of bin Laden. The Bushs have a long history of close personal relationships with the Saud royal family through Bandar, including holiday gatherings. In 1994 King Faud of Saudi Arabia and Clinton agreed to remove Saddam from power and plans were undertaken - but it is still as yet unknown why they did not proceed. Bush is very out of touch with the Palestinian-Israeli issue - in the words of a Pentagon senior official, "he doesn't know his stuff." Crown Prince Abdullah had to show pictures of dead Palestinian children to Bush to get Bush to see the other side of the issue. Cheney is seen as increasingly hostile to Mid East issues from the Mid East point of view. Cheney and Rice both mishandled some basic diplomacy that almost cost the US the support of Saudi Arabia in anything. It took a near shouting match between Powell and Bandar on the deck of the Crawford ranch to catch Bush's attention and realize that everything was being undeemiined beneath him. And Powell and Bendar are old racketball buddies from the 70s. Rumsfeld abandoned diplomacy with Abdullah going off on a thing about American weaponry rather than deal with a pressing issue to Saudi Arabia - the removal of Saddam. The Saudis have a longstanding hatred of Saddam and have long wanted to oust him - because they fear Saddam coveted their oil fields. The first Bush used Bandar as his intermediary to Saddam. Saddam played off Bush and Bandar with a presumed interest in Israel (which he evidently is not that interested in) while he was prpearing to invade Kuwait. Arafat was far more responsible for wrecking the last days peace initative of Clinton than anyone realized, even those who blamed Arafat underestimated how close it was to peace. (Side note not in the article - if anyone saw Clinton on Letterman on September 11th 2002 that would explain why Clinton went almost ballastic when Arafat's name came up.) That no matter what, the Saudis see no peace in the Middle East until the Israel-Palestine issue is settled. Bush has displayed some relevatory religious faith which is guiding him, inlcuding almost blowing everything with Abdullah by wanting to say Christian grace at meal. It would appear that if you can get Bush to get misty eyed he is more prone to moving in certain directions. The article also recounts other foibles of Bush 1, Bush 2, and Clinton diplomacy and gives a fascinating insight into how things work from a perspective that we rarely if ever see. As I read the article it was neither for nor against anything/anyone that we have arguing here, just fascinating insights into how things work - and who knew about Libya being so helpful on bin Laden? i heard about lybia offering to help. but what i thought it was because we bomb him in his home, permently hurting his leg and killing one of his daughters. since then he really had a change of heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Anybody ever read the National Geographic where they go into Libya and interview Qadaffi? It was a really good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 23, 2003 Author Share Posted March 23, 2003 according to the article - and remeber Qaddafi is a secularist and bin laden is a religious fanatic - the Libyan hatred for bin laden was because of long ago terrorism from bin laden against Libya - which is why it turned out (and news to me) that Libya was the first country a long time ago that wanted an international death warrant on bin Laden. I cannot provide a link, I wish I could. My past experience is that New Yorker articles are not available on line for several weeks. The best I can say is current issue on sale now. It looks very evenhanded to me because the pluses and minuses of each president, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton, are dealt with in this perspective. Bush 2 seems a tad out of touch, Clinton operating on too many tracks for his own good, and Bush 1 as always going on personal relationships as paramount. And the strengths of all 3 are there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Anybody ever read the National Geographic where they go into Libya and interview Qadaffi? It was a really good read. no give us an idea of what was reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 23, 2003 Author Share Posted March 23, 2003 Anybody ever read the National Geographic where they go into Libya and interview Qadaffi? It was a really good read. missed that one - it said what???? Right now I am hot on learning all i can in this regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Just a sec, I'm gonna run down to my basement to get it. In 1999 I think, they did features on Iraq, Iran and Libya. Lots of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Just a sec, I'm gonna run down to my basement to get it. In 1999 I think, they did features on Iraq, Iran and Libya. Lots of stuff. The November 2000 issue. Been a while since I've seen it. Gonna look through it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Just a sec, I'm gonna run down to my basement to get it. In 1999 I think, they did features on Iraq, Iran and Libya. Lots of stuff. The November 2000 issue. Been a while since I've seen it. Gonna look through it now. can you scan it and post it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0011...ure1/index.html Havent got a scanner. Here is some stuff that was in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Iran (Entire Feature Article): http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9907...hilights.html#a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Oh, and Ames, Iowa http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...ure6/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 A lot of the article is where the author interviews Qadaffi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.