Even though the Bush Administration seems monolithic at times, it really isn't. Some inside the administration have wanted stronger criticism of Saudia Arabia than Bush has permitted. Others have wanted a softer approach, and they're still battling in the papters. Witness:

[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?ref=washington|U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia]:

WASHINGTON, July 27 \ufffd The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia\ufffds role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

It's hard for internal critics to ignore public reports that [link|http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003611786|most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia]. It also gives them more ammunition to oppose the sale to SA while at the same time arguing that Israel needs more.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
(It looks, though, like Bush hasn't come across [link|http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200707120912.htm|a sale] of much of [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900281.html|anything] that he hasn't supported.)

I hope I don't come across as being someone who is nit-picking your posts. That's not my intent and I hope I don't give that impression. You consistently find interesting and timely topics to discuss. If I express annoyance on the topic, or have a different emphasis, I don't intend it to be directed at you personally.

Thanks. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
(That goes for everyone else out there, too.)