Saudi King Blasts U.S. "Occupiers" In Iraq

(AP)  King Abdullah's harsh — and unexpected — attack on the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.

The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Mideast troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.

The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king's characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation," saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.

"The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people."

"We disagree with them," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. "We were a little surprised to see those remarks."

The king made his remarks Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said Abdullah, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the "patchwork" job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.

The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result — but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq's Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.

Abdullah's remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. The kingdom also has been talking to various factions in Iraq.

Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests.

"The king's remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. "In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause."

Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia's lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation.

"If Saudi Arabia didn't blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?" he asked.

The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king's remarks Thursday — and his defense had hints of the Arab nation's attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn't have the legitimacy to approve the U.S. presence.

"If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it's something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country — that is the definition of occupation," al-Faisal told reporters.

[toolmangler-2009]

henry6543, We are a micro-organism, its called 'cancer'. Don.t worry a vaccine is coming soon.

[grazinggoat]

What are the prerequisites for a president to go to war for the highest interests of his nation?
What are the prerequisites for an invaded nation to go to war to defend its highest interests?

What ARE the highest interests of a Nation? Who defines the highest interests of a Nation? How can they be detrimental to the other Nation? What do they imply in term of invading another nation and monopolizing its resources? What an invading Nation%u2019s obligations toward the invaded Nation are?

It%u2019s all written in the law books of the United Nations. Walking-Liar has not read them. (Does he know how to read;?) Hence the resistance of the Iraqis.

Saudi Arabia with its known strong relationship with US, strangely questioning the legality of the our presence in Iraq?

Does the Saudi King feel the heat coming to his derriere?

[grazinggoat]

CBS: 'The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq WITH PERMISSION from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.'

-Imagine this;
Walking-Liar: Would you mind if we stayed here Nouri?

Nouri: well let me think of it.... (3 seconds later) yes George, yecanstay. But don't sneak into mabackyard. And don't cuss at me if our neighbours didn't like ya!

[henry6543]

Maybe we humans should give the planet back to the micro-organisms. They were here first.

[henry6543]

Corrupt political power can misuse and abuse religion, money, scapegoating of minority groups, public sentiment, and so many other elements of society.

The real problem is corrupt political power not the social institutions it uses. Advocating the suppression of those institutions only feeds the beast.

Other related Issues are confused political power and inadvertent results of well-intentioned political power.

[henry6543]

How about Atheist China's support of Islam ExtremistIran. How about Putin's relationship with Iran.

It seems there are a lot of non-religion based alliances out there in the world. I'm supposed to believe that just Saddam and Bin Laden couldn't work together, and somehow magically now Baathists and Jihadists work together everyday.

And this future bathroom attendant for Amadinejad (picture above) after the future Iranian takeover of his Kingdom joins the blame-America-for-everything crowd.

No one was having any problems until America came along- I hardly think so.

[henry6543]

Here's definitive proof that sectarians and religious zealots CANNOT possibly join forces:

KIM JONG IL (atheist lunatic))
AHMADINEJAD (religious lunatic)
CHAVEZ (socialist lunatic)

They never met nor had meetings or discussed a unified anti-American policy, right?

Main trait in common LUNATIC, not religion!

For those of you who don't read english those three lunatics have met, and they're not even of the same religion or from the same region.
Maybe the left can convince us that they were just playing a nice game of GO FISH.

[patriotic9]

I'm not a religious expert but I do have my thoughts and opinions about religion in government. Just because there are so many religions and so many people living in nations of different cultures and nationalities I think its only fair for a govenment to be religion free and religion neutral in order to ensure fairness for all the people who live in that nation, no matter which nation it is.

Posted by tbweb at 12:52 PM : Mar 31, 2007

I totally agree with you.Religion is always used as a tool to fool the people.Any unjustified action can be justified on the name of Religion because when people talk about religion,they refer to God and God can not come in front of the people and tell them that this guy is a liar,These are not my statement this guy is using for his personal interests.
I think what we need to do are
1) To find an alternative energy resource.
2) To keep religion out of politics.
3) To keep America and American interest on the top priority.
4) To stop sending US tax dollars to the Eruopean invaders in Palestine,Palestine,Egypt,Jordan and the democratically elected religious Radical in Iraq named "MALIKI" who is taking our Tax money on the name of Rebuilding Iraq and our Weapons on the name of Arming Iraqi Security forces to kill our troops deployed there.

[tbweb]

--patriotic9

I agree that the Arabs can charge any price they want for their oil, its their oil. But with that said it was obvious to me the prices were set based on politics, namely U.S. support for Israel. Whenever the Arabs became angry and didn't like U.S. decisions that favored Israel the price of oil jumped. The Arabs abused there power and I hope the U.S. develops alternatives to oil so that the U.S. can regain control over its economic future.

[tbweb]

--patriotic9

Like I said I'm not a religious expert but that may be an advantage because I can express a fair and innocent opinion. The issue between Israel and the Palestinians from what I do know seems to center around where the calendar starts as to who was there first! What is the cut off date, Israel claims it was there first based on the calendar the Israelis use and the Palestinians claim they were there first based on the calendar they use! I wonder if time was not an issue would the Israelis be right and they were there first, I really don't know but if the Israelis were there first based on their calendar then the Palestinians are wrong! Who decides which calendar to use?