Speculatin'

The deafening silence in the press and the blogosphere concerning Saudi King Abdullah's condemnation of the US/British occupation of Iraq forces Blog Simple to engage in some reckless and uninformed speculation.

Just three months ago, when VP Cheney went off on one of his world tours, we were assured by most pundits and reporters that the reason for the visit to Saudi Arabia was to ease the fears of the worried King that the admin would follow the recommendations of the ISG, and start to 'draw down' forces in Iraq. If we did reduce or withdraw, the Saudis, we were told, might have to send support to the Sunni insurgents.

Even more recently, we were told that the administration was forming a 'moderate' coalition to counteract Iranian inspired Shiites who were threatening to destabilize the Pax America that reigns outside Iraq.

So what happened?

1. The Iranians have mollified the fears of the Saudi's if they ever had any.
2. Abdullah went out on a limb to bring the Palestinians together, obviously a prerequisite for any meaningful peace talks with the Israelis.
3. Condi was supposed to use this as a basis for some kind of quid pro quo to restart talks. She must have given assurances to the Saudis that she would get results or start to pressure the Israelis.
4. Condi went to the Israelis and tried to get talks started, the Israelis repeated their demands, and refused any quid pro quo, and when she threatened to apply pressure, the Israelis called on Cheney to stop her.
5. Condi, as usual, returned to Washington with her tail between her legs.
6. The Saudis, and especially the King, saw this as a personal betrayal and insult, and responded accordingly. It must be clear to them that there is no one in charge in the traditional sense in Washington, Cheney is still the biggest dog but he doesn't do diplomacy so there is no one to talk to.

What is most striking about the King's speech is that it was made by the King. I've been googling like a fury to try to find some reports with at least unnamed sources speaking, or maybe Bandar, anybody, who can explain this total shipwreck of US policy. What sounds like an earthquake to me is barely on the front web page of the NYT, absent from the WaPo, the LA Times, CNN, or MSNBC. It's like no one knows what to say yet, they're all waiting to get the appropriate spin from Rove or Cheney, but the shipwreck is keeping them too busy bailing out Gonzo or fighting off the Democrats.

What's next? The US has no one left to talk to, has lost its pressure on Syria, and probably any help that the Arabs might have given with Iran. Just our good buds the Israelis are on board, and how! There was some Russian report that the attack on Iran will start on April 6, sounds about right to me.

Update: At least we know why CNN doesn't have room on their front page to cover this. It got shoved aside by this blockbuster: Trump has 50 percent chance of losing hair
I kid you not.