But here's the exquisite part: We're in Iraq, ultimately, because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - that's what made the average American realize the Middle East was a festering swamp that absolutely had to be drained, and that's what gave the President the support to go into Iraq. The beautiful thing is, the dictators who backed terrorism were telling themselves how shrewd they were to buy off the terrorists to preserve their own regimes. Oh to be able to see their faces as the depth of their miscalculation dawns on them!

It will be a simple matter for the Saudis and Iranians to start paying terrorists to kill prospective democratic leaders in the Arab world. Hariri is only the opening shot.

And the notion that Bush will stand up to Saudi pressure is absurd. Who'll pay for his brother Fredo(excuse me, Neil) Bush?

Bart:

that's silly.

The Saudis haven't given Fredo over $50 million in the last decade or so because he's good looking or smart.

I didn't mean that part--though whoever replaced the Sa'uds would pick up his tab, so that's silly too.

A democratic, peaceful state does not need to subsidize the incompetent of the powerful in other countries in order to acquire influence and respect. Only a group of thuggish desert bandits needs to do such things.

The Saudis or the Iranians could easily hire someone out of al-Qaeda, the unemployed Ba'athist thugs, the Communists, the PFLP,Hezbollah, the Islamists or anyone else in that Star Wars bar that is the Islamic world to do their dirty work. What would it take for someone to kill the putative Vaclav Havel of Syria or Egypt?

Then why do we give Israel money?

Because it is in our interest to have a democratic, peaceful high-tech state, with one of the world's leading defense establishments on our side. Take a look at the companies on the NASDAQ and you'll see why. Also, if we didn't give the Israelis money, they'd just have to get a whole lot meaner than they have been, and they have the ability to do so.

It's not in their own?

Mr. Judd;

Why are those exclusive? Bart didn't comment on whether it was in the Israeli's interest, only whether it was in the USA's interest. It's like when I contribute to the Institute for Justice to fight abuse of eminent domain. It's certainly far more in the interests of the defendants in the cases I pay for, but that doesn't mean it's not also in mine.

AOG:

Exactly. Now apply your reasoning to Bart's original point.

OJ,

America and Israel have close relations because Israel is for all intents and purposes as much a part of Robert Conquest's Anglosphere as Australia and Britain and more than Canada, New Zealand or Ireland. The money that goes back and forth has little or nothing to do with it. Israel's interest in a close relation with the world's superpower, especially when that superpower exemplifies the best of what Jews see as virtues, does not need explaining. Among Jews, the debate is whether America or Israel is the Promised Land. The fact that the two work closely together is, for want of a better word, a mitzvah.

Yet they are bought.

America buys the fact that the Israeli voting public does not unite behind its irredentists, at most. The natural cooperation between both states is no more surprising than that between the US and Australia.

Yes, America buys...

i am not sure whose argument this supports, but the original patrons of israel were the french. israel only got cozy with the u.s. when the french pulled out.