Analyzing Saudi King's "Outburst"

Reading this very interesting article regarding the most recent Arab League meeting, I noted that, for its analysis, it missed the key component as the most likely reason that the Saudi King feels compelled to "distance himself" from the United States: the ongoing attempts to surrender by majority Democrats in both houses of congress and leave Iraq a mess for the Saudis and the rest of the folks in the region to deal with.

The reporter did her best not to appear biased by pointing out that the US is operating under a UN mandate now. However, she went on to link the kings remarks with Condi's comments about Israel (because, in Europe, where the AFP is located, it's all about Israel, all the time).

She did note that the King said "failed US policy" which it will be as soon as we finish surrendering. Until then, it is simply a mess, not a failure.

Still, this is the most telling part of the article, even when it leaves out the important aspects.

I suppose this is supposed to be proof that the Arabs don't like us anymore either and are finally speaking their minds, they are so annoyed with our ME policy that the King of our favored ally in the region must say it at the Arab League.

However, the "omission" I noted earlier as to the "surrender" policy, tempers my response to his statement. Frankly, if I was in his shoes, leader of a nation right next to Iraq with my country full of rather religious political types and, having been quiet for several years, keeping oil flowing to the US and its allies at reasonable amounts and prices (being the unrecognized controller of such prices) and I had to wake up several mornings in a row to find out my "ally" was about to abandon Iraq with all its troubles, its terrorists, its refugee potential (thus economic crisis potential for my nation), etc, etc, etc I would be distancing myself, too and attempting to gather up new allies since it is apparent they will be left alone to confront Iran.

That is another consequence of leaving.