Wednesday, June 29, 2005

An uncomfortable alliance



My reaction to this article:

As a supporter of President Bush, I disagree with the assertions made over the last 3 years that we went to war for oil, or that Bush and the Saudis are conspiring together to benefit big corporations, etc. Yet I am concerned about the recent unwillingness of our government to condemn the human rights violations and religious persecutions of Saudi Arabia with more than just words. Once the State Department added Saudi Arabia to the list of worst religious persecutors (one of seven nations), the law gave the state six months to act on it. But we didn't. And when Bush and Prince Abdullah met in Crawford recently the only statement to come out of the meeting was, "a message of peace, moderation, and tolerance must extend to those of all faiths and practices." Meanwhile, Saudi religious police are arresting Christians for the "crime" of gathering in private, burning Bibles, and bulldozing Hindu temples. And lest we forget, I'm not too excited about the indoctrination of hatred towards infidels with the radical version of Islam--Wahhabism. This is happening in American Muslim schools as well.

This type of stuff is the norm in Saudi Arabia, and yet "the top agenda item [in Crawford] was increasing oil production"? This troubles me because it goes against what I know of George W. Bush--that he does what's right because it's right. Bush refused to meet with Arafat because he was a terrorist. He should do the same with Prince Abdullah.

Is this refusal to take action against Saudi Arabia related to oil? More than likely. Is Bush caught between taking action against a religious persecutor and avoiding disapproval by the American people for what would very likely result in higher oil prices? Probably.

Most Americans don't know what goes on in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it's easier to be silent than endanger something that's on every American's mind--oil. On the other hand, since I don't have the unique vantage point of the president, I don't know what he knows, nor can I fully and without reserve criticize his policy. But from what I understand, I call on President Bush to condemn and take action against Saudi Arabia, regardless of what effect in oil prices it may have. Be consistent with what I know of you, Mr. President, and do what's right because it's right.

3 Comments:

Blogger Barba Roja said...

If Bush actually cared the slightest bit about religious freedom, he'd stay away from the Saudi royal family. Instead, they're the best of friends. Don't tell me any of this is the slightest bit suprising to you.

6/30/2005 7:28 AM  
Blogger Seth said...

(I was waiting for a remark like
this...)

I don't think Bush is perfect, nor have I ever been totally unconcerned with the connection between Bush and the Saudis. But unlike most of the left, I don't believe Bush is some human rights-discarding, bloodthirsty tyrant traipsing around as a lover of freedom when he's actually a wolf who's going for the jugular of the world's disadvantaged.

This conspiriatorial crap is not a search for truth, but rather a convenient means to the vitriolic end of villifing Bush at all costs.

6/30/2005 9:51 AM  
Blogger Barba Roja said...

What conspiracy? it's not like he's being secretive about it if they're standing right next to each other.

Besides, accusing Bush to committing dirty deeds while claiming higher ideals doesn't mean you assume he's an evil psychopath, it just assumes that he's a politician, if a little worse than usual in his brazeness and hypocrisy.

6/30/2005 10:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home