Friday, February 15, 2008

So How Much Did We Have to Pay Him? 

Courtesy of our waggish colleague J. Schwarz: According to British high court testimony, the President's #1 asshole buddy (pictured at right below) has been running a sweet little protection racket:
Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday . . . .

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family . . . .

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head" of the government.
Why, if we thought even half of that story was true, we'd be tempted to call the little Saudi motherfucker a common terrorist. But we know for a fact that our stalwart commander-in-chief would never deal with terrorists, and Mr. Bush sure-as-shootin' deals with Prince Bandar -- or, as he's affectionately known in Kennebunkport, "Bandar Bush":
In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS, [Bob] Woodward, a Washington Post editor, said that Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, had promised President Bush that the Saudis would cut oil prices before November [2004] to ensure the U.S. economy was strong on election day. Woodward is the author of the new book "Plan of Attack" on Bush's preparations for the Iraq war . . . .

"It is a relationship that goes back generations," said [author Craig] Ungar, who says he's tallied some "$1.4 billion worth of contracts from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bush's and their allies have had big positions."
You may or may not be amused to note that on 4/19/04, the publication date of the article cited directly above, crude prices had risen to a shocking high of $38 a barrel "on fears over increased violence in the Middle East."

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

-- Sir John Harrington (paraphrasing Seneca)

UPDATE (2/16): If you are pleased by pretty pictures of moral idiocy in full flower, you will find much to love in this Guardian recap of Mr. Bush's Thursday night interview with the BBC:
President George Bush cited the London July 7 bombings in an interview broadcast last night to justify his support for waterboarding, an interrogation technique widely regarded as torture.

In an interview with the BBC he said information obtained from alleged terrorists helped save lives, and the families of the July 7 victims would understand that. Bush said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, was not torture and is threatening to veto a congressional bill that would ban it . . . .

In the BBC interview, Bush was asked whether, given waterboarding and other alleged human rights abuses, he could claim the US still occupied the moral high ground. He replied: "Absolutely."

He added: "We believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe in the human condition. We believe in freedom. And we're willing to take the lead. We're willing to ask nations to do hard things. We're willing to accept responsibilities. And - yeah, no question in my mind, it's a nation that's a force for good."
What a remarkable coincidence! -- that President Bush and the Saudi motherfucker whose bitch he is should both invoke the 7/7 attacks in their discussions with the Brits! -- albeit in different contexts:
Previously secret files describe how [British] investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries [into the BAE bribery scandal] and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
We are in principle opposed to all forms of torture, waterboarding included, but under the circumstances we do not feel it could possibly hurt if, upon Prince Bandar's next visit to the UK, the chaps from MI6 were to strap him to the old seesaw and attempt to ascertain whether he has been completely forthcoming about the possibility of future terrorist attacks. Nor should his American client and confidant be allowed to set foot on English soil without being given the opportunity to explain, under extremely moist conditions, what sort of delicate intelligence the eminent Saudi nobleman might have confided to his trust.

Barbaric? Perhaps. But then, we're willing to ask nations to do hard things. And Mr. Bush, by his own admission, is willing to accept responsibilities.

Now: place your bets. In the scenario described above, which one rats out the other first?

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us