Saudis ask Bush to intervene in Mideast

Ron Burgundy · 07-23-2006, 05:45 PM

Saudis ask Bush to intervene in Mideast (AP)

AP - Saudi Arabia asked President Bush on Sunday to intervene in Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon to stop the mounting deaths.

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia asked
President Bush on Sunday to intervene in
Israel's military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon to stop the mounting deaths, but administration officials said they remain convinced that an immediate cease-fire is not the answer.
ADVERTISEMENT

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that during an Oval Office meeting with Bush, he gave the president a letter asking that Bush help seek an immediate cease-fire in the Middle East conflict. The meeting came on the 12th day of fighting in which Israel has bombed south Beirut and other targets while Hezbollah has rained hundreds of rockets on northern Israel.

"We requested a cease-fire to allow for a cessation of hostilities," Saud told reporters after the meeting.

"I have brought a letter from the Saudi King to stop the bleeding in Lebanon, and there has been an agreement to save Lebanese lives, Lebanese properties and what the Lebanese have built, and to save this country from the ordeal it is facing," Saud said. Saud's comment reflected Bush's past statements that all want the violence to stop, although he has refused to press for an immediate cease-fire.

Saud and four other Saudi officials met with Bush for more than an hour Sunday.

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice also participated in the meeting before departing for Israel in the first U.S. diplomatic effort on the ground since Israel began bombing Lebanon on July 12. The fighting has killed hundreds in Lebanon and dozens in Israel.

Officials from the U.N., Europe and other Arab countries have already urged an end to the fighting. Rice and Bush have rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire, saying it does not make sense if the terrorist threat from Hezbollah is not addressed. They have said Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorism and that Hezbollah must return two captured Israeli soldiers and stop firing missiles and rockets into Israel if they want the fighting to stop.

"Our position on an immediate cease-fire is well known and has not changed," White House national security spokesman Frederick Jones said after the meeting with Saudi officials.

Nail al-Jubeir, a Saudi embassy spokesman, said the Saudis would not release the letter or get into other details of the proposal because it was a private communication between Abdullah and Bush. Asked whether the Saudis requested that Bush directly pressure Israeli leaders for a cease-fire, al-Jubeir said they cannot tell the president who to call. But he noted Bush has a unique influence to negotiate with Israel.

"The U.S. has the authority, it has the clout with Israel," he said. "For us to go and talk to the Israelis isn't going to do anything."

Saud said in their meeting, Bush expressed his desire for the violence to stop. But Saudi officials would not say how he responded to their request for an immediate halt to Israel's bombing campaign.

"I am not speaking on (behalf of) the president," Saud added. "I am saying that we have agreed on the necessity to stop the fighting, so that the Lebanese government will be able to impose its authority upon its lands.

"Now the task is to hold negotiations with the Lebanese government to lay down the details of these issues, and as you know Rice is heading to the region to work on that," Saud said. "All the details will be left to the Lebanese government."

Saud spoke to reporters mostly in Arabic. His comments were translated by Arabic-speaking staff of The Associated Press.

A White House spokeswoman, Eryn Witcher, would not comment on the Saudi proposal. She read a three-sentence statement listing the participants and saying only that they have "shared goals of helping the people of Lebanon and restoring sovereignty of the government of Lebanon and building stronger Lebanese armed forces."

"They discussed the humanitarian situation and reconstruction and putting conditions in place for an end to violence," Witcher said.

Witcher said participants in the meeting including Saud; Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the secretary general of the national security council; Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States; Adil al-Jubayr, the counselor to Abdullah; and Rihab Massoud, the deputy secretary general of the Saudi national security council.

For years, the Saudis have been among the United States' closest allies in the Arab world, despite strains from U.S. pressures aimed at increasing democracy in the conservative kingdom.

The Saudis are among several moderate Arab countries that have worried about expanding influence in the Middle East by
Iran, which create Hezbollah and has helped train and finance the organization. On the other hand, they cannot afford to appear too supportive of American or Israeli interests for fear of alienating their own citizens.

Saud spoke to reporters outside the West Wing as he left the White House.

"There is only one problem in this crisis: It is Lebanon, and the inability of Lebanon to exercise its sovereignty over its territory," Saud said. "Everybody who needs to help, who must help, should help."

Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, said before the meeting that the U.S. will stand firmly behind Israel, noting that an attack on an ally is considered an attack on the U.S.

"We are allies, and we will support Israel in its right to self-defense," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "At the same time, we will do everything possible to make sure the crisis has a minimal impact on civilians.

"The purpose is to maintain a sustainable cease-fire," Bolten said. "It's sustainable only if we get to the root problem, which is Hezbollah, a terrorist organization."

Bolten said international peacekeepers might be needed in Lebanon to help end the fighting, but that U.S. troop involvement was unlikely.

Rice plans meetings in Jerusalem and the
West Bank with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In addition, she will go to Rome for sessions with representatives of European and moderate Arab governments that are meant to shore up the weak democratic government in Lebanon.

"She'll be talking to friends and allies as to whether and when force is appropriate and how it should be constructed," Bolten said.

Bush said he has directed Rice to discuss with Mideast leaders how best to end the fighting in Lebanon. The chief U.S. diplomat will not meet with Hezbollah leaders or their Syrian backers.

ballz2wallz · 07-23-2006, 06:10 PM

i find this interesting...does anybody else besides me see why?

motivez · 07-23-2006, 07:29 PM

Why?

ballz2wallz · 07-23-2006, 07:30 PM

suddenly the US is called upon to be the 'savior' of a crisis in the world (typical response when there is a problem)...when so many in the world bash them for 'meddling in the affairs of others'

certainly we can't have it both ways.

motivez · 07-23-2006, 07:32 PM

I don't think they want US troops on the ground, I think they want us to pressure Israel to stop the violence and support a UN/Nato peacekeeping mission

ballz2wallz · 07-23-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think they want US troops on the ground, I think they want us to pressure Israel to stop the violence and support a UN/Nato peacekeeping mission

what difference do troops on the ground make? he still wants the US to be the savior of the crisis.

and as i recall, the US has pressured israel to back off a bit.

motivez · 07-23-2006, 08:57 PM

I don't think we've pressured them to back off at all.. we've urged them to use restraint but not asked them to stop doing anything they were already doing

US troops on the ground is a big thing in a country like Lebanon, any international force will not likely contain US troops because of the potential problems

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-23-2006, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

suddenly the US is called upon to be the 'savior' of a crisis in the world (typical response when there is a problem)...when so many in the world bash them for 'meddling in the affairs of others'

certainly we can't have it both ways.

Eh, you may or may not have a point, depending on why Saudi Arabia asked us to intervene. If they asked us to be a 'savior' simply because we're big and powerful and have influence, then fine. But if they asked us because we basically control Israel militarily, and they think we're in a unique position to hold back Israel, then there's nothing hypocritical about that. It's like asking a Syria to control Hezbollah.

Donkey® · 07-23-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

what difference do troops on the ground make? he still wants the US to be the savior of the crisis.

and as i recall, the US has pressured israel to back off a bit.

We haven't pressured them to do shit. People are asking us to step in because Israel won't listen to anyone else...as they put it "nobody cares about us." They've been asked by many countries MANY times to stop what they're doing....to deaf ears.

TekDragon · 07-23-2006, 10:11 PM

1. Surrender the capured soldiers.
2. Remove troops from Isreali border.
3. Stop firing into Isreali territory.

Those are the 3 requirements for Isreal to cease fire. They are not only reasonable, they are BEYOND reasonable. If Hezbollah will not accept those terms and if Lebanon will not force Hezbollah to accept those terms, then I not only oppose the US pressuring Isreal to stop - I support our supplying of precision guided bunker buster bombs to slaughter those rat bastards in their caves.

Donkey® · 07-23-2006, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

1. Surrender the capured soldiers.
2. Remove troops from Isreali border.
3. Stop firing into Isreali territory.

Those are the 3 requirements for Isreal to cease fire. They are not only reasonable, they are BEYOND reasonable. If Hezbollah will not accept those terms and if Lebanon will not force Hezbollah to accept those terms, then I not only oppose the US pressuring Isreal to stop - I support our supplying of precision guided bunker buster bombs to slaughter those rat bastards in their caves.

404-caves in the middle of Beruit Lebanon NOT FOUND.

The originally proposed UN resolution called for

1: Israel withdrawl
2: Soldiers released
3: Cease fire.

Israel decided not to go for it and the US vetoed it.

civicmon · 07-24-2006, 01:22 AM

I love stuff like this because when the US DOES get involved, everyone shouts "wtf are you doing? why are you getting involved in other people's business?"

Then when the US does nothing, everone starts sayin "wtf are you doing Why are you not doing something?"

Can't have it both ways... want the US to be the savior of the world? Fine.... don't critisize when the US does get involved.

ballz2wallz · 07-24-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Eh, you may or may not have a point, depending on why Saudi Arabia asked us to intervene. If they asked us to be a 'savior' simply because we're big and powerful and have influence, then fine. But if they asked us because we basically control Israel militarily, and they think we're in a unique position to hold back Israel, then there's nothing hypocritical about that. It's like asking a Syria to control Hezbollah.

we DON'T control israeli military. of course they asked us because we are big and have power. but israel is still its own country, and israel still does what it wants. there are MANY instances where israel did not do the US's bidding. and that's why bush is only urging restraint and not making demands...he recognizes the independence of israel in their decisions.

ballz2wallz · 07-24-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by civicmon

I love stuff like this because when the US DOES get involved, everyone shouts "wtf are you doing? why are you getting involved in other people's business?"

Then when the US does nothing, everone starts sayin "wtf are you doing Why are you not doing something?"

Can't have it both ways... want the US to be the savior of the world? Fine.... don't critisize when the US does get involved.

EXACTLY

another example...when the US didn't give as much aid to the tsunami vicitims a few yrs back...the world was in an uproar.

6SpeedTA95 · 07-24-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

EXACTLY

another example...when the US didn't give as much aid to the tsunami vicitims a few yrs back...the world was in an uproar.

Didn't give as much aid as what? I thought by the time you added our donations and use of personel that we gave 30% more than the next closest country?

Stylerod · 07-24-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Didn't give as much aid as what? I thought by the time you added our donations and use of personel that we gave 30% more than the next closest country?

Personal donations don't count when people want to talk bad about the US.

ballz2wallz · 07-24-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Didn't give as much aid as what? I thought by the time you added our donations and use of personel that we gave 30% more than the next closest country?

that wasn't until after the world was pissed that we only gave 350 million...and i don't think they were considering the total amount, but a percentage of what we had.

it was fucking ridiculous

TekDragon · 07-24-2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

EXACTLY

another example...when the US didn't give as much aid to the tsunami vicitims a few yrs back...the world was in an uproar.

Wait.. I read that a good number of those nations that "pledged" support later winded up not donating a damn thing - leaving the US to foot the bill. They just said they were donating to hop on the bandwagon and to stick it to the US.

ballz2wallz · 07-24-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Wait.. I read that a good number of those nations that "pledged" support later winded up not donating a damn thing - leaving the US to foot the bill. They just said they were donating to hop on the bandwagon and to stick it to the US.

i don't know anything about that, but i wouldn't doubt it

JaJae · 07-24-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that wasn't until after the world was pissed that we only gave 350 million...and i don't think they were considering the total amount, but a percentage of what we had.

it was fucking ridiculous

That region ended up receiving more money than the region was worth to rebuild 3 times over. It was insane how much money it got. Bush gave what he was able to give immediately without the approval of Congress. Bush took a lot of shit for it. Then Congress met and we sent more. But at that point it was a who will give more contest and they started distorting the numbers, aka per capita American donations, % of GDP, etc etc. Then it went to criticizing how much money we spend on our military compared to how much we gave to the tsunami.

The whole situation made me sick.