Well, let's pray the Secret Service is both good and lucky.

Posted by: undaunted at May 13, 2008 5:58 PM

Why is GW even contemplating traveling to SA, or anywhere at all in the ME for that matter? Has he acquired a martyr complex? The Secret Service must be having nightmares about how to protect him.

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 6:08 PM

You're right, Eastview.

These Secret Service guys are going to be sweatin' bullets til they're wheels-up from that garbage dump.

Pray if you got 'em.

Posted by: undaunted at May 13, 2008 6:18 PM

hmmm

when they kill Bush it will be alright...

it won't be jihad because the US government doesn't have that word...

it will be a misunderstanding and we shouldn't worry because 1.3 billion mo-luvvers are really peaceful nice guys and gals....

not big deal and nothing to do with islam like when girls get raped and kidnapped from minorities, people get blown up by suicide bombs and rockets get fired at isreal....

and we will all believe that....

Posted by: exposesithlords at May 13, 2008 6:38 PM

Shoot Bush? They are bigger fools than I thought.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 13, 2008 6:38 PM

poetcomic1,

No kidding. He's their best asset.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 13, 2008 6:46 PM

Undaunted,

I visited your web site at http://freemendo.typepad.com/. Very impressive. It's good to see you posting here, and I would look forward to your assessment of this situation as it develops.

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 7:09 PM

Shoot him. That could be justification for an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Or Iran.

Or the leftists in the US will dance in the streets and hand out candy. They will in Gaza.

Posted by: Mystical Time Traveler at May 13, 2008 7:31 PM

BULL SHIRT!

No one in Saudi will kill bush; maybe they'll lie in wait, but that is about it.

bush is there to check up on his assessts -- nothing more.

Posted by: witness at May 13, 2008 7:35 PM

Some of the comments above would be truly hilarious, if they weren't so sadly true.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at May 13, 2008 8:17 PM

No way the SOWdis would want to see Bush go the way of all mortals.. like it was mentioned above, he's their best asset.

Oh, and by the way, 80 people were killed by "extremists" in Northern India.

Wonder what "religion" they might be members of...

I think Vegas wouldn't bother figuring out the odds. Should be 1000:1 it's pigslam.

Just in case.. keep Cheny well and safe. Better than Nancy p-brain if push comes to shove.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at May 13, 2008 8:18 PM

Congress forces the President to beg for more oil while they refuse to do ANYTHING about increasing our domestic production. Be it for Immediate, short or long term capabilities. Congress is the Pathetic party. Now they intend to use up the the reserves.

I suspect Iran would have a greater interest in such an action and blame it on Al-Qaeda. Iran is the only one to benefit from the rift in relations such an event would have on US-Saudi relations.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 13, 2008 8:43 PM

But, but....the Saudis are our good friends! And allies! If only we would let the Saudis help us by teaching us how to extract our own oil, the way they have successfully extracted theirs, then we could lift some of the burden off their shoulders.

Posted by: Jewel Atkins at May 13, 2008 9:05 PM

Bush is going to Saudi Arabia for the same reason FDR cozied up to Stalin and went to a place like Yalta-----we need something from a totally unsavory ally. In FDR's case it was continued military effort against Nazi Germany and a promise to eventually go after Japan (thankfully Truman decided to drop the A-bomb and thus by doing so negated Soviet intervention).

In Bush's case it's because we need Saudi oil, along with a few ancillary reasons like some intelligence on some Islmaic nutjobs (even though the damn Saudis won't provide enough intelligence on others). Both of these Presidents can rightly be accused of being too chummy with each respective despicable ally, but the alternative of not engaging in a diplomatic give and take for form's sake would have meant, and mean, consequences at least as dire as the pursued course.

Bottom line: As long as America is dependent on Saudi oil we will need to suck up to the SA bastards from time to time. Be sure to thank both American political parties for this unnecessary situation since we have more than enough oil here at home to supply almost all of our needs, but bogus environmentalism has impeded this imperative time and time again. Thus, Bush is going to a place which is far more like a family than a country. Yep, realpolitik right up front and personal like. Welcome to the real world.

Posted by: Wellington at May 13, 2008 9:40 PM

Mystical Time Traveler, it is now six years or so from the hundredth anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. The outrageous Austrian demands placed on Serbia led to World War I. There will be no consequences to the Saudis if Bush comes under fire.

The difference now is our leaders will make no demands. Should Bush be harmed, our government will utter the same, tired, and useless diplomatic statements.

What the average, working American will do is anybody's guess.

Pessimism grows deep.

Posted by: Pelayo at May 13, 2008 9:54 PM

Thank you, Eastview.

My quick assessment, based on what I know of Secret Service methodology, is they're on the ground there in force right now and probably have been for a while.

With this intel, they're not going to let POTUS stick his neck out in the open. To get to W, the bad guys may determine their best bet is to swarm him and his detail, like Sadat, using the sniper threat as a ruse to draw away resources. An attack like that would imply KSA authorities were involved at some level.

That's just my view at the moment.

And for you idiots who are flippant about this threat... it could very easily get very bloody, with multiple American deaths. You really don't want anything like this to happen. Wars have started over less.

Posted by: undaunted at May 13, 2008 10:19 PM

Well, Saddam tried to kill George's dad while he was in Kuwait, didn't he?
Maybe someone is trying to restart the zero factor. Beginning in 1840, every president elected a year that ended in zero died in office. Ronald Reagan broke the string. Bush 43 might be testing it to see if it's truly broken.
What this trip brings to mind is Richard Nixon's tour of the Middle East early in 1974. It didn't save him from impeachment. It's not likely to save George's place in history, either.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 10:36 PM

Wars have started over less.
Posted by: undaunted

---

You mean the Iraq war this fool got us into?

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at May 13, 2008 11:02 PM

Its a begging trip, its a haj. Its two trips in one

Posted by: Charles Bogle at May 13, 2008 11:14 PM

Sorry if I don't really care one way or the other.. Bush made his bed a very long time ago.. unfortunately he has also made ours.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at May 13, 2008 11:29 PM

No, Ummah Gummah; that's not what I meant.

Posted by: undaunted at May 13, 2008 11:35 PM

The sick thing is that plenty of people in this country would be more than happy to see the President killed.

Posted by: Mo at May 13, 2008 11:40 PM

Mo: Sadly, your comment that many in America would be glad to see Bush killed is all too true. It's digusting------and stupid. But then not a one who would welcome this or even just think Bush a fool would be someone I would prefer over the President sitting in the Oval Office. Not a one.

Bush has made mistakes to be sure and he is almost certainly too sanguine about the capacity of the Muslim world to assert its humanity over its totalitarian religion, but he has kept us safe here at home since 9/11, has noble intentions across the board and is far, far more clever and knowledgeable than virtually all of his critics realize. Besides, when you look at someone like Obama or Clinton or even McCain, Bush comes off shrewder than any of them. I think history will eventually record as much.

Posted by: Wellington at May 13, 2008 11:58 PM

They'd shoot Hillary first.

Bush is in their backpocket and they wouldn't want to get it spoiled.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 14, 2008 12:08 AM

Nobody has enriched our Wahhabist enemy more than Dubya. Why would they want to target him?

Can't spell Wahhabi without Dubya.

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at May 14, 2008 12:31 AM

Wasn't W just in Saudi on his farewell tour doing the Sword Dance? And I agree that a Shaheed Swarm is more likely than a lone sniper. They never do a lone sniper! Where do these people get their intel?

Posted by: Bingo at May 14, 2008 1:17 AM

Since Bush has been president there have been 7 movies about killing the president. Bush won't be president for long, but those 7 movies will still be out there.

Posted by: Infidel One at May 14, 2008 1:45 AM

Good comments, Wellington,
thank you for stating the minority opinion so clearly. I share your views.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 14, 2008 2:53 AM

Does anyone know who will be accompanying him on his SA trip, and who he might be meeting there besides the King, such as the Saudi oil minster? I wouldn't expect his agenda to be made public, but there might be something out there floating around the blogosphere that gives a hint about the underlying reasons for this trip. Anyone?

About sniping capabilities. Might not a good quality sniper rifle be capable of bringing down Air Force One, say on final approach?

Posted by: Eastview at May 14, 2008 3:23 AM

With our borders wide open, I doubt that we can attribute the lack of follow-up (to 911) attacks to President Bush's cleverness. More likely, it is our enemy's cleverness that explains the lack of those attacks. (The enemy may suspect that there are many Americans eager to deport all muslims resident on our soil and to outlaw islam ... follow-up attacks would trigger the backlash.)

No. Don't try selling me 'President Bush cleverness' as an explanation for any current events. Hell, he's not even a good beggar - he just makes you want to slap him around.

President Bush's administration has been eight years of pathetic. Just pathetic.

Posted by: HotSpur at May 14, 2008 4:43 AM

Even now people are still in denial about how bad Bush is.

Are people putting political tribal loyalties ahead of Western security?

Posted by: Big Luke at May 14, 2008 6:18 AM

War with Iran is reason enough to keep the Saudis on our side. The same goes with all the Gulf Families.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 14, 2008 7:03 AM

Wellington, Eastview, and Davegreybeard;

Maybe I'm missing one or two more minority players here but I agree with what you've written.

This Bush-bashing is childish and stupid. No one, not one single soul here or anywhere else knows all the many different factors that go into one line of policy on one single issue. None of us.

Bush is in the pocket of the KSA; in bed with the Wahhabi's. The Wahhabi's tried to kill bin Laden back in the late 90's because he wasn't serious enough about Islam. And they're going to cut W some slack? Please... STFU.

Bush doesn't care about the borders. Why? Because he didn't enact every bullet point of your favorite policy?

Bush is making money off the high price of oil ~ it's his fault. No, Clinton could have signed ANWR and we'd be swimming in our own oil now. Bush tried to get AWNR approved but was stopped by hostile Democrats and a hateful press.

So much goes on behind the scenes in politics that it's impossible to discern the true motives of any leader until years after they've passed from the scene. History will show W was and is a good man and President.

Taking Iraq was the right thing to do at the right time. Where W dropped the ball was in not selling it as pre-emptive defense, instead opting to make it look like we were grand liberators. Some parts of the war plan went wrong, but things go horribly wrong in every war. Looking at history, fewer things have gone wrong in this war than in others.

And the word you're looking for, Hotspur, if you were even close to being right, and you're not, is pathos, not pathetic.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 9:27 AM

And, no sniper rifle can take down a 747.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 9:40 AM

Bush has made mistakes to be sure and he is almost certainly too sanguine about the capacity of the Muslim world to assert its humanity over its totalitarian religion, but he has kept us safe here at home since 9/11, has noble intentions across the board and is far, far more clever and knowledgeable than virtually all of his critics realize. Besides, when you look at someone like Obama or Clinton or even McCain, Bush comes off shrewder than any of them. I think history will eventually record as much.

Posted by: Wellington

I am not going to hand out candy when someone dies, especially Bush, that's not my disagreement with you Wellington. Where I do disagree with you is the implication that Bush has kept the US safe since 911.

Consider how long the planning for Al Qaedas 911 attack took and you will see the Islamic patience in effect. It takes time, lots of time to get cells into place, and coordinate such things. Keeping the US in a state of comfort until they least expect it, just like a nice September morning.

The border has long been infiltrated. Mexican drug gangs have infact been selling their services of professional smugglers to Jihadists. Student visas from middle eastern countries has gone up since 911, not down. Immigration from middle eastern countries continues without any significant change in screening. Infiltrators, supporters, moles of Jihadists organizations and enemy countries that have terrorist ties are ubiquitous. (Nada Pouty, Hasham Islam). Be certain their are Jihadist supporters all over. Hizballah sleeper cells have infiltrated for years and have the Iranian nation coordinating them.

Keep in mind that Jihadist attacks have happened. How many died in Salt Lake City shooting, or the Seattle shootings of the Jewish women? You've had entire families murderer such as those in New Jersey and CAlifornia. Islam continues scheming, within the US, outside the US.

In the meantime, you've got Justice department having meetings with Jihadist supporters, DHS providing grants to Jihadist organizations, State Department similar acts. Nothing has changed. Wouldn't you think these things would be a priority of Bush? I mean he's had 8 years....I just can't give him a hats off for protecting the US while I see him at the wheel of a charter off course.

REgarding Undaunted.....Pre-emptive defense for nation building...well that's just brilliant. Don't let it deter you that spending hundreds of billions of dollars while sacrificing thousands of soldiers, and wearing down the resources of the military in the desert atmosphere faster than Bremer got out of BAghdad change your eternal perception that Dubya's utopian dream in Iraq was the right thing to do at anytime.

I think it's pretty clear about Bush's legacy....fighting a tactic, desperate not to name the enemy, while indirectly aiding and abetting that enemy....while doing all you can to not insult that enemies sensibilities.... while allying with those that support that tactic, that have done the most to create the very tactic that the US is now at war with is simply foolish.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 14, 2008 10:04 AM

Why would anyone even bother? Bush isn't worth thinking about, let alone killing.

Posted by: Abscedere at May 14, 2008 10:05 AM

In hostage negotiations, the negotiator listens to the gripes and demands of the hostage-takers, no matter what their issues.

The negotiator can grant or deny certain things to the hostage takers in order to bring to pass a result wherein no one gets hurt. That's his goal.

Too, the negotiator makes tactical decisions, at least as far as timing is concerned. He decides when HRT goes in and, to a degree, how. He decides when snipers get the green light. And when the freakin' pizza deilvery guy can come into his AO.

He is life and death to the hostage takers, and therefore, life and death to the hostages.

Those of you academics who have no wiring or training in tactical disciplines are just boring. Your world view isn't the only on the table and may not be the only one in play at any given moment.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 10:19 AM

Undaunted:
Let me introduce you to an invention by a man named "Barrett": 50cal, range 2,400 yards, (1/2 MILE, or better) fully capable of using incenerary rounds.
Imagine; a 747 on final, 500ft of altitude, being hit in either wing (filled with aviation fuel, BTW) by the aforementioned COMMON sniper rifle, using an incenerary round and a 20x scope. Most likely outcome, Mr Undaunted?
Care to revise your statement? Radar `73-`75

Posted by: NamFrank at May 14, 2008 11:52 AM

No.

The plane in the given scenario will be moving at least 150kph until wheels-down.

The statistical probability of one round, whether from the sniper rifle you think I don't know about or from Oswald's carbine, hitting, let alone taking down a 747 is... zero.

This super-sniper you're conjuring up will have to hit the wing/fuel tanks from the side, which is about 18" from top to bottom, give or take.

To increase the probability of the one-round hit you're so sure your time in Nam will let you make, you'll have to be shooting at the surface of the wing, not the forward or trailing edge. To angle that shot, you'll have to be directly under or over the plane. Imagine.

Let me introduce you to physics.

And the word you're looking for is incendiary.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 12:30 PM

And I'm sure I'm in a better position to know about armor on AF1 than you, NamFrank.

So, again... no.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 12:33 PM

And, on final approach, the wing tanks would not be full.

It's your argument going down in flames.

Let me introduce you to math.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 12:40 PM

"Those of you academics who have no wiring or training in tactical disciplines are just boring. Your world view isn't the only on the table and may not be the only one in play at any given moment."

It seems the level of insight and intelligence Bush has displayed over the last two terms is shared by his supporters.

Posted by: Big Luke at May 14, 2008 2:31 PM

Oh. I'm breathless.

That gives new meaning to the word underwhelming.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 2:41 PM

"Oh. I'm breathless.

That gives new meaning to the word underwhelming."

Lol!

Campest/ bitchiest post of the year!

Posted by: Big Luke at May 14, 2008 2:49 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tj49V13Iv-4

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 3:13 PM

Undaunted, Your comments, which appear to be based on experience, are refreshing and add a much needed dimension to this forum. Just ignore the background chatter and don't allow yourself to be baited by those who traffic in the trading of insults.

Posted by: Eastview at May 14, 2008 4:17 PM

Thank you, sir.

That's what the crickets signify.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 4:19 PM

If I had voted for John Kerry ( I said IF ) I would be carefull about using the word,"pathetic".

Posted by: pismopal at May 14, 2008 7:26 PM

Davegreybeard: Thank you (again) for your supporting comments (Eastview and undaunted as well). Ah yes, things are often far different than the conventional view (ditto for Eisenhower, Truman and Reagan in their own time). I would submit to all that President Bush is not what he seems to be to a majority of those who judge him adversely. I strongly submit this. I will not back down here unless persuaded by incontrovertible evidence, which, to date, has not been produced.

Sneakyzionistcrusader: Am in agreement to a point about what you say respecting Bush's guarding of our southern border. Too bad Mexico is a disgrace of a country, this not meant as a criticism of the Mexican people, fine folk that they are, but rather of the Mexican government, which is abysmal. Nonetheless, Bush has moved to secure the border (even though not enough) more than any previous President, including Ronaldus Magnus, and it strains credulity, I would respectfully submit to you, that no credit should be given Bush for the fact that no Islamic terrorist attack has occurred in America since 9/11. Quite the contrary, I would vigorously argue that Bush is at the epicenter of preventing more Muslim terrorist attacks on the homeland since that darkest of months some seven years ago. Still, the President has not done enough and is unfortunately possessed of the idea that Muslims are just like the rest of us. They are not, for they adhere to the one major religion which is totalitarian in nature. Here, Bush remains somewhat in the dark, although I have often wondered what he thinks of Islam in his most secluded thoughts. My best to you and yours. We are, after all, mostly on the same page.

Posted by: Wellington at May 14, 2008 8:25 PM

Well said, Wellington.

Posted by: undaunted at May 14, 2008 8:50 PM

Wellington, I understand what you're saying, but I am not sure you considered what I was getting at.

First off, after such an attack on 911, what President wouldn't have started everyday meetings regarding domestic security? What president beit democratic or not, wouldn't have taken overhauling measures to domestic security? It's hard to give the man credit for things that are defined in his job responsibility list.

Also, as I mentioned, Jihadist plans for these sorts of attacks do infact take years to impliment. How long did 911 take in total time of planning? Probably close to a decade. Remember, there is no patience like Islamic patience, and Jihadists will wait until it's least expected. That is for certain.

I simply cannot give the man much credit for doing what really is his job, that he has no excuse for not doing. AGain, ,I'm not scapegoating Bush's predecessors, simply saying it's hard to give credit for doing what is obviously expected of him and any President in office.

Regards to you too Wellington.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 15, 2008 11:16 AM

Wellington I forgot also to further emphasize the border security issue with Mexico and the infiltration.

Regardless of what Bush has done on the border, it's a huge security threat. Stopping illegal immigration is a obviously a desired objective... in the context of stopping terrorists it's vital and mandatory. No anti jihad strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the pieces on the chess board continue to be moved into place. It takes time. Bush hasn't been hit with another major attack yet, although Jihadist attacks have occurred as I noted, but he very well is responsible for Jihadists being able to get into position, from where they be in positions to strike, as promised, when the time is right.

Although Clinton was at the wheel for at least 2 major attacks that I can remember, he also was responsible for allowing the people involved in the 911 attack getting into positions. Bush was at the wheel during that attack, but Clinton did allow (obviously not on purpose) those 19 Hijackers, and the hijackers support network the ability to get into positions for the opportunity to strike.

We do know that Al Qaeda is in the US. WE know that the mexican drug cartels have been selling their services to them, weapons, smugglings etc. Bush has had years to get that complete physical control of the border that is absolutely necessary to any anti jihadist strategy.

And i won't even bother talking about the Islamic moles infesting government bodies, military, police etc that have yet to be purged.

So again, I'm not going to give Bush my hats off for doing the minimum to keep the US major terrorist attack free for 7 years.

That's how I see it. Again, regards to you and yours.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at May 15, 2008 11:37 AM

"Complete physical control of the border."

Not possible.

That's where your criticism and your argument falls apart. You're damning the good by demanding the perfect.

Posted by: undaunted at May 15, 2008 1:29 PM

undaunted: Perfect point about not being able to achieve perfection. My compliments.

Sneakyzionistcrusader: I would argue that being just an average President (i.e., doing the minimum) demands above average ability and attention. Here's where you and I disagree because Bush has been at least average and thus should be given some credit. For instance, the President has understood the importance of the Patriot Act and has acted accordingly to thwart numerous fledgling conspiracies formulated by Islamic fruitcakes. Unfortunately, we now have one of the two major political parties in this country maintaining that the Patriot Act is unnecessary or inimical to basic constitutional rights (it's not) or that it's contrary to basic American fairness principles (rubbish). Whatever shortcomings Bush has exhibited, he is light years ahead of the Kennedy/Kerry/Gore/Reid/Pelosi/Feingold/Obama/Clinton understanding of what we're up against.

But I do think our borders (both south AND north) need more security than exists at present. After all, America is about creating a more perfect union (which would include secure borders), even though perfection will forever elude even the greatest nation on earth. McCain understands this well enough but America really needs a Lincolnesque or Churchillian type figure right now. Hell, for that matter, the entire West does------about a half a dozen of them. On this point, I don't think you and I would disagree. Again, my best to you and yours. And the fight against totalitarian Islam (excuse the redundancy) continues-------thank God for Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Wellington at May 15, 2008 5:57 PM

Thank you, sir. You put a pretty good sentence together yourself.

Posted by: undaunted at May 15, 2008 10:01 PM