Blogs: Guest Blogger: Edwards Slams Bush's Arms Deal With the Saudis

Edwards Slams Bush's Arms Deal With the Saudis

Posted by Guest Blogger at 12:28 AM on August 3, 2007.

Ari Berman: John Edwards joins a growing chorus of Americans who are calling on congress to stop Bush's planned $20 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
16 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Guest Blogger RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also by Guest Blogger

USDA Renews Approval of 46 Non-Organic Ingredients in "Organic" Foods

GOP '08 Candidates Take Their Creepshow to the Iowa Stage

Newspapers Join Forces Against the War

Gen. Wesley Clark: "We Are Not Questioning the Generals. Mr. President, We Are Questioning You!"

Is Hillary On Rupert Murdoch's Side?

This post, written by Ari Berman, originally appeared on The Nation

At least one high-profile presidential candidate has come out against the Bush Administration's proposed $20 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

"Congress needs to stand firm against the president," John Edwards said in a press release this week. "The administration's proposed arms deal with Saudi Arabia isn't in the long-term interests of our country or the region. This deal has serious shortcomings--it doesn't force Saudi Arabia to stop terrorists from going into Iraq, make a real effort to help stabilize Iraq, lead regional security talks or assure the arms will not be used for offensive purposes. Congress should do the right thing and block the deal."

A group of Democrats in the House are preparing to introduce legislation to block the deal "the minute Congress is officially notified," according to Reps. Jerry Nadler and Anthony Weiner. Democrats picked up their first GOP co-sponsor when New Jersey Republican Mike Ferguson announced his opposition to the deal on Tuesday.

"I am deeply disappointed with the Bush Administration's decision to begin negotiations with Saudi Arabia on a $20 billion arms package of advanced weaponry," Ferguson said at a press conference, "and it is our hope that Congress will take every step necessary to block this transaction."

The deal has members of both parties scratching theirs heads. If Dubai wasn't fit to run our ports, they reason, why should the Kingdom of Saud get our arms?

[UPDATE: 114 members of the House, including 16 Republicans, sent a letter to President Bush this afternoon stating their "deep opposition" to the arms deal and vowing "to vote to stop it."]

The guest bloggers are a pool of people that blog for AlterNet and share their content. Got a tip? Send it to peek@alternet.org.

Return to Guest Blogger » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 16 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also by Guest Blogger
USDA Renews Approval of 46 Non-Organic Ingredients in "Organic" Foods At the same time, the USDA withdrew approval for a type of food coloring and a food additive. May 8, 2008.	GOP '08 Candidates Take Their Creepshow to the Iowa Stage James Neffinger, Rachel Sklar and Drew Westen: This party is in trouble. August 5, 2007.	Newspapers Join Forces Against the War Max Follmer: Across the country more and more major newspapers are calling for some form of troop withdrawal from Iraq August 4, 2007.	Gen. Wesley Clark: "We Are Not Questioning the Generals. Mr. President, We Are Questioning You!" Taylor Marsh: Wesley Clark's exhilarating keynote speech at Yearly Kos brought the audience to its feet cheering. August 3, 2007.	Is Hillary On Rupert Murdoch's Side? Ari Berman: Sen. Clinton has been silent on Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal. Have his contributions to her campaign paid off for him? August 3, 2007.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Unbelievably worrisome [Report this comment] Posted by: asilsfable on Aug 3, 2007 1:17 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] As far as disastrous moves go, this one is off the map. It appears that it isn't enough to have Israel as a 'proxy' army, we have to create one with Saudi Arabia as well. Should have seen it coming. We can't afford the Iraq mission for too much longer, but arms sales will certainly buffer the inevitable slump after we eventually pull out. I hope, by some miracle, this gets blocked--along with the uptick of arms funds to Israel. If not, it means a lot more bloody days and nights, with Iraq being in the vortex. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » Insanity. Pure insanity (from a perspective of US interests and peace.) Makes great sense Posted by: albrechtkrausse What about our giant aid package to Israel [Report this comment] Posted by: american on Aug 3, 2007 5:55 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Do we not have several giant military bases in operation right now in Iraq? Never mind Italy and Turkey. And are we not borrowing money to maintain these expenditures? Am I right so far? So we are borrowing money from our non-wealthy classes and their children to give $20 billion, plus huge amounts of military donations, for free? This is okay? The people around Israel live much poorer lives than they do. Why are we propping up their standard of living while at the same time reducing ours? Somebody please give me a common sense answer. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » A common sense answer.... Posted by: sphoenix serenity NOW [Report this comment] Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Aug 3, 2007 6:21 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] The easiest, most succinct way of explaining this "situation" is that, for empire, the future is now. Since empires are destined failures, those in charge of them only look out for themselves. Rome, however, was not owned by Saudi Arabia and operated by Israel like this one. "Laws? What good are your laws, judge? The good people don't need them and the bad people don't obey them anyway" -Emmett Hennessy via Utah Phillips [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Brain fart [Report this comment] Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Aug 3, 2007 7:03 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Seems we have another bright idea from the right. We should all remember another one they made under RR. Essentially the same crew of numb nuts,too. Sell arms to Saddam Hussein and throw in chemical weapons to sweeten the pot. Look how well that turned out. But the money grubbers still have the loot from that debacle. They are salivating thinking about increased war profits from this newest brain fart. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? [Report this comment] Posted by: russianblue1 on Aug 3, 2007 7:37 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] It doesn't even matter what it's for - it's fuckin' criminal. Saudi Arabia sits on a massive oil field, has money coming in from all parts of the globe, is a primary and influential member of OPEC, and gets enough American money by way of the gas pump!! Why would the US give them more? Does the US have that kind of extra cash lying around? If so, shore up Social Security and Medicare with it! If you're not going to spend the money domestically, give to a country that really needs it (can someone say just about any country on the African continent?). DAMN IT, I'm so friggin' sick of the moronic way the US operates - never in its' own best interests or for its' own citizens. The world has not seen such self-centered, selfish bullshit since the decay of the Roman empire and they got exactly what was coming to them. Wake up, America, 'cause the same thing is heading this way - history DOES repeat itself. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: hilaryuk » RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: russianblue1 » RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: tommy_slothrop THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING HEAVILY ARMED [Report this comment] Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 3, 2007 7:50 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] We arm the Saudis, Russia arms Iran, China will sell anything to anybody, Israel & Palestine are well stocked, the US is the weapons capital of the world. So why can't we all just get along? Because getting along doesn't cost as much as a constant state of war which generates a profit and a need for more weapons. Not to be confused with being well educated, healthy and happy. There is a choice. Thanks, ANNA [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Not rocket science [Report this comment] Posted by: Schroeder on Aug 3, 2007 8:46 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Dubai is not fit to run our ports and we shouldn't be Arming the Saudi's...Wasn't it 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 that were from Saudi Arabia??? George, it just shouldn't cost that much for you to continue to hold hands with the prince. Buy him ice cream!!! [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Not rocket science Posted by: VZEQICVA Continued [Report this comment] Posted by: mommy64 on Aug 3, 2007 10:03 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] They believe the BushI,II, powerfully enabled by Ronald Reagan, relationship with the Saudis is superior to Islam's forces that challenge/will challenge Saudi rule. Which is why Bush II designated binLaden a "garden variety terrorist." Abdullah evolves moderate, but, as a contributor to Cape Cod Times Gonzales, illustrates: "Where is the moderate voice in the United States or Islam? Royal Saudis bought Wahhabism; BushI,II bought Christianity's equal. They're both stuck, which is reason for new US government. And Gorbachev was right about Putin. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Of course he did!!!!! [Report this comment] Posted by: opeluboy on Aug 3, 2007 5:11 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] And not a word about another 30 billion to Israel! Which is why I won't support this blow-dried, faux-populist, Zionist. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] WHEN will idiocy like this be seen as at least an INDICATION that our prez is batshit, bugfuck NUTZ? [Report this comment] Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Aug 11, 2007 11:27 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Yes it's profanity, no, it isn't "excessive", not to my mind. What Bush keeps allowing and our so-called "representatives" in the Congress keep allowing is as obscene as it GETS, though! This is crazy! Ian [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Insanity. Pure insanity (from a perspective of US interests and peace.) Makes great sense Posted by: albrechtkrausse

» A common sense answer.... Posted by: sphoenix

» RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: hilaryuk

» RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: russianblue1

» RE: WHAT THE HELL IS THE US GIVING $ TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR???? Posted by: tommy_slothrop

» RE: Not rocket science Posted by: VZEQICVA