Netanyahu turns down invite to meet with US Senate Democrats

[beechguy]

'... my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."' This being from the sole Middle East country with nuclear weapons.

'... to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship ...' Funny interpretation of partisanship. Much more likely he is out to avoid embarrassing questions about his leadership.

More likely, the embarrassing questions would be asked about the Democrat leadership. The two Senators made the invitation for a reason, they don't want to be caught in Obama's BS, and he'll be gone in less than two years.

The two most senior Democratic party Senators invited Netanyahu to speak to all the US Senators of the Democratic party in a Senate caucus room and in private.

It was the in private that Bibi doesn't like or want.

Bibi would have come running out of that meeting butt scorched for the rest of his life, hop on a plane and go home to tend to the wounds.

I think you have it backwards, more likely they would be lined up to kiss his butt, and ask that the Jewish money not dry up from their campaigns, and apologize for Obama for good measure.

[Srikcir]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Smart man. Meeting with Democrats would be useless and nothing but an ear ache. Just looking at Pelosi or Reid makes me wanna throw up.

It doesn't take many Democrat Senators to block a Presidential veto override. And should the Democrats gain back either the Senate or House in 2016, Israel might pay for Netanyahu's folly with Republicans.

[Publicus]

'... my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."' This being from the sole Middle East country with nuclear weapons.

'... to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship ...' Funny interpretation of partisanship. Much more likely he is out to avoid embarrassing questions about his leadership.

More likely, the embarrassing questions would be asked about the Democrat leadership. The two Senators made the invitation for a reason, they don't want to be caught in Obama's BS, and he'll be gone in less than two years.

The two most senior Democratic party Senators invited Netanyahu to speak to all the US Senators of the Democratic party in a Senate caucus room and in private.

It was the in private that Bibi doesn't like or want.

Bibi would have come running out of that meeting butt scorched for the rest of his life, hop on a plane and go home to tend to the wounds.

I think you have it backwards, more likely they would be lined up to kiss his butt, and ask that the Jewish money not dry up from their campaigns, and apologize for Obama for good measure.

That is the same post as the one I replied to, just more of the same that goes nowhere....

[Srikcir]

Bibi's sole reason for addressing a joint session of Congress is to raise the alarm concerning Iran's enrichment program which is designed to produce plutonium. Plutonium has only one end product. Nuclear bombs. Is that clear enough for you Jing?

Therefore Bibi's speech is not political. It is designed to prevent obama from signing some stupid give away the store deal. A deal from which we can never recover. Congress needs to enact draconian sanctions, crippling sanctions against the mad mullahs.IMHO

Then Netanyahu would be totally ignorant on how the US congress works.

A USA president must have congressional approval to enter into foreign treaties. No USA president can just give "away the store." On the other hand Congress cannot enact "draconian sanctions" without presidential approval and this Senate does not have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

[Jingthing]

Risky business, Bibi.

What is he thinking?

Benjamin Netanyahu’s blinkered view of American politics

The Israeli prime minister thinks that he has to destroy the U.S.-Israeli bilateral relationship in order to save it.
____

In essence, Netanyahu is proceeding as if Obama’s lame duck status as president renders him powerless to conduct foreign affairs. Which is pretty much insane.

...

Either way, if Netanyau is reelected and if a P5+1 deal is reached — and these are both big ifs — the effects on the bilateral relationship over the next two years will be devastating.

To supporters of Israel who think Bibi is handling the U.S. relationship well, consider how happy anti-Israelis are to see this mess. If they're happy, why are you happy?

Edited February 25, 2015 by Jingthing

[ChiangMike]

When I went to University in Southern California shortly after 9/11, probably a majority of folks were highly sympathetic to Israel and supported it tacitly. Now it's different. People growing up through the foreign policy fiascos since then are much more critical and cynical (as maybe they should be).

Israel keeps aligning itself further and further with the right wing in America (especially the evangelicals) and naturally those folks will praise it. Netanyahu could light his farts on TV and they'd celebrate it as a brilliant tactical move against Obama -- but in reality Israel is through Netanyahu's actions alienating people it needs. Especially the young, especially those sitting on the fence and trying to appraise the situation with a less partisan eye.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

To supporters of Israel who think Bibi is handling the U.S. relationship well, consider how happy anti-Israelis are to see this mess. If they're happy, why are you happy?

The only thing I can think of is that Bibi is calculating he might sour the Jewish vote for Democrats. Obama has snubbed him, and this Iran thing stinks for Israel.

The Jewish vote isn't huge but the campaign money is, and the press coverage is. Many POTUS elections are won by a small margin.

Also perhaps he is trying to rev up the determination of existing non-Jewish Jewish supporters who number more than just a few.

Bibi is obviously taking a calculated risk not only in the US but in Israel, and at the moment he may feel he has Obama and his Dems rocked back on their heels.

Edited February 26, 2015 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

When I went to University in Southern California shortly after 9/11, probably a majority of folks were highly sympathetic to Israel and supported it tacitly. Now it's different. People growing up through the foreign policy fiascos since then are much more critical and cynical (as maybe they should be).

Israel keeps aligning itself further and further with the right wing in America (especially the evangelicals) and naturally those folks will praise it. Netanyahu could light his farts on TV and they'd celebrate it as a brilliant tactical move against Obama -- but in reality Israel is through Netanyahu's actions alienating people it needs. Especially the young, especially those sitting on the fence and trying to appraise the situation with a less partisan eye.

Thoughtful and well said.

Younger Americans and minorities are less sympathetic towards recent Israeli behaviors than are the older generation, as the Pew surveys track since 1978.

Netanyahu is trying to establish the current Congress as the competing foreign policy center in the US to that of the president. Netanyahu is attempting this for transient reasons, purposes, designs.

This is true despite it being Constitutionally indisputable to include every and all of the rulings of the Supreme Court over 238 years, that the president is the sole organ of the United States in relation to all ministers and potentates of foreign governments, of foreign policy, international relations, treaty making powers and the like.

PM Netanyahu is promoting that the Congress establishing a competing foreign policy to that of the chief executive who is also commander in chief. Netanyahu is a right wing conservative same as Rush Limbaugh. While Limbaugh sits and pontificates politically, Netanyahu runs about from door to door to kick them in.

[wwest5829]

As the citizen of a foreign country Netanyahu is not subject to the USConstitution but he's very well aware of it on his own and he has the best legal counsel in two countries to consult on it if he's interested.

This is a clash of philosophies as much as anything else, if not the nub of it. In the USA Netanyahu is a conservative and a hard right one besides, take no prisoners especially wimpy liberals.

If Netanyahu believes the United States would not destroy Iran today if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons today or today made an all out conventional war attack against Israel, then I must question his balance, his perspective, his judgement.

Let's see if all of this madness stays this way or if there's a change of the guy at the top. Either way, one has to respect the voters of Israel to look after their interests too. So if Israel and the US might diverge, it would be temporarily to recover later...optimistically speaking.

(And let me say to the TVF Right that it is not an issue of the separation of powers, because yes Congress can invite who it wants to invite, yes it can and is. The president is the chief of state and in the Constitution s/he exclusively receives foreign visitors. Congress can invite Satan if it wants to and few to include myself would argue with the right to do it, but the Congress is not the the sole organ of the United States abroad and government-to-government, state-to-state, as the president is at home or abroad. This is out of order.)

Agree. He could have suggested that he come after the Israeli election to avoid the breach of protocol so let's not forget that this is also a domestic political move by Bibi. Dicey game, inviting criticism of U.S.-Israeli relations. The support for Israel, IMHO, stands but there are cracks due to the Israeli right wing over reactions militarily, the continued expansion of settlements on the West Bank...and with the U.S. Current fiscal concerns, the annual fiscal payments of taxpayer monies cannot be overlooked.

[SaamBaht]

I don't blame Netanyahu for this political BS, but the Republicans for showing such disrespect to a sitting prez.

The next thing they'll do is claim Obama isn't Christian or that he doesn't love America. Oops! They already did that.

[Trouble]

As far as I am concerned, the problems of the USA in the Middle East would not have been where they are had at least one president in the last 20 years told the Israelis to stop building settlements on territory outside their original boundaries or risk loosing American taxpayers dollars and support. Israel certainly had a right to defend its country but their actions with regard to settlements have only inflamed the issue. It turned out to be a giant land grabbing enterprise.

There just might have been a peace settlement and coexistence with the Palestinians and other countries around them. America's continued support has only reinforced the Israelis intransigence on the issue.

While I am no fan of Obama, this is the only thing where I feel he is on the mark. He has shown his unwillingness to blindly support Israel. But then I think this is only by accident and not his specific stragegy.

[chuckd]

Bibi's sole reason for addressing a joint session of Congress is to raise the alarm concerning Iran's enrichment program which is designed to produce plutonium. Plutonium has only one end product. Nuclear bombs. Is that clear enough for you Jing?

Therefore Bibi's speech is not political. It is designed to prevent obama from signing some stupid give away the store deal. A deal from which we can never recover. Congress needs to enact draconian sanctions, crippling sanctions against the mad mullahs.IMHO

Then Netanyahu would be totally ignorant on how the US congress works.

A USA president must have congressional approval to enter into foreign treaties. No USA president can just give "away the store." On the other hand Congress cannot enact "draconian sanctions" without presidential approval and this Senate does not have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

You are correct that Treaties must be ratified by the Senate to take effect.

However, there is something called Executive Agreements which are at the beck and call of this president.

He can enter the US into an "agreement" with a foreign government without prior approval, consultation or after the fact Senate ratification.

That is what this president intends doing to enable Iran to eventually become a nuclear armed nation. It has likely been his plan from the beginning.

Presidential Agreements are subject to Congressional oversight but this administration will simply ignore Congress. Six years of history proves that point.

I expect somebody will be along shortly to inform us what has really happened behind the closed doors in DC. Stand by.

[Publicus]

That is what this president intends doing to enable Iran to eventually become a nuclear armed nation. It has likely been his plan from the beginning

The president is not trying to give nuclear weapons to Iran. Nor does the president have a happy plan to nuclear arm Iran, or to assist or to cheerfully enable Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I'd be interested in the bizarre thinking involved in this strange and fringe claim among the tea party extremists on the right.

The president's authority to make executive agreements in foreign and international affairs is in Article II of the Constitution, Section 2. It is a part of the system of checks and balances of institutional jurisdiction and authority, the separation of institutional powers.

Article II, Section 2, gives the president absolute autonomy in foreign affairs in addition to requiring that treaties the prez negotiates must be submitted to Senate for its absolute disposition. Separation of powers, checks and balances.

[Ulysses G.]

The president is not trying to give nuclear weapons to Iran.

He is also not much concerned with stopping them. His main concern is a deal that he can pretend is a foreign policy "success".

A sunset clause?

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-iran-deal/2015/02/26/9186c70e-bde1-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

[Publicus]

The president is not trying to give nuclear weapons to Iran.

He is also not much concerned with stopping them. His main concern is a deal that he can pretend is a foreign policy "success".

A sunset clause?

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fatal-flaw-in-the-iran-deal/2015/02/26/9186c70e-bde1-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

The president is not trying to nuclear arm Iran.

[NeverSure]

When I went to University in Southern California shortly after 9/11, probably a majority of folks were highly sympathetic to Israel and supported it tacitly. Now it's different. People growing up through the foreign policy fiascos since then are much more critical and cynical (as maybe they should be).

Israel keeps aligning itself further and further with the right wing in America (especially the evangelicals) and naturally those folks will praise it. Netanyahu could light his farts on TV and they'd celebrate it as a brilliant tactical move against Obama -- but in reality Israel is through Netanyahu's actions alienating people it needs. Especially the young, especially those sitting on the fence and trying to appraise the situation with a less partisan eye.

Gallup Poll

"These results from Gallup Daily tracking interviews are also similar to what Gallup measured for another period of heightened Israeli-Palestinian violence in 2002. This stability suggests that Americans' underlying attitudes about the region may be anchoring their reaction to the Gaza conflict, even as raw images of the fighting and civilian casualties pour in."

Americans are incredibly negative about Hamas and a clear majority supports Israel. I don't know how anyone can think this visit is bad for anyone but Obama and his lackeys.

Edited February 28, 2015 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

When I went to University in Southern California shortly after 9/11, probably a majority of folks were highly sympathetic to Israel and supported it tacitly. Now it's different. People growing up through the foreign policy fiascos since then are much more critical and cynical (as maybe they should be).

Israel keeps aligning itself further and further with the right wing in America (especially the evangelicals) and naturally those folks will praise it. Netanyahu could light his farts on TV and they'd celebrate it as a brilliant tactical move against Obama -- but in reality Israel is through Netanyahu's actions alienating people it needs. Especially the young, especially those sitting on the fence and trying to appraise the situation with a less partisan eye.

Gallup Poll

"These results from Gallup Daily tracking interviews are also similar to what Gallup measured for another period of heightened Israeli-Palestinian violence in 2002. This stability suggests that Americans' underlying attitudes about the region may be anchoring their reaction to the Gaza conflict, even as raw images of the fighting and civilian casualties pour in."

Americans are incredibly negative about Hamas and a clear majority supports Israel. I don't know how anyone can think this visit is bad for anyone but Obama and his lackeys.

Unt.jpg

It wasn't easy or automatic but the great majority of Americans have come to support Israel, after two things primarily, both in the ME. One was Israel being attacked twice and then itself making a preemptive strike to crush a pending attack. Second the ayatollahs taking over in Iran in 1979 to include American hostages. Israel became a nation state before I started kindergarten so that's always been a natural for me.

Reliable and reputable surveys show however younger generations of Americans are not so convinced, to include young evangelicals, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, Millennials.

The three wars since 1948 were horrible enough but in a sense easier to accept than the Intifada messes and the ongoing violence of the more recent times. Iran since 1979 has been a serious problem to Israel and the United States separately and as allies.

The Iran problem now is the nuclear one which has produced a new problem, and his name is Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the new Republican-Likud Senator from Israel. He's making it very difficult and unnecessarily so, but he is a far right extremist which means he's not ever going to give up that particular ghost.

Being Israel's Rush Limbaugh means Netanyahu hasn't offered a peaceful alternative to collapsed or terminated negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran. There is no viable alternative on the table to the negotiations. In other words, the world is looking at the equation of no negotiations = no peace. The right sector in government and politics need to offer the probability of peace in the absence of negotiations and a negotiated agreement, and that they have not done, and it so appears they cannot or will no do.

From the Jewish Policy Center in Washington DC....

Changing Demographics: Implications for Israel

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4063/israel-demographics

Once, an American's party affiliation said little about his attitude toward Israel, but times have changed. In a poll conducted during Israel's November 2012 Operation Pillar of Defense, 80 percent of Republicans voiced support for

Israel, as opposed to only 51 percent of Democrats.

When the sample is divided into conservatives and liberals, the difference is even sharper. Some 77 percent of conservatives supported Israel, with only 6 percent opposed. For self-identified liberals, 37 percent supported Israel and 27 percent opposed.

An analysis of Pew survey data reveals that those who identify with the Democratic Party were 14 percent less likely to approve of current levels of U.S. support for Israel than Republicans, and 12 percent more likely to say the U.S. supports Israel "too much."

Regardless of a respondent's age, income, education, race, religion, and attendance at religious services (and whether controlling for these factors independently or concomitantly), this partisan gap remains unchanged.

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4063/israel-demographics

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4063/israel-demographics

[englishoak]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

[beechguy]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

Quite right, the world loved the U.S. and was a paradise before GW. Never mind that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Barracks in 1996, two U.S. Embassies in one day in 1998, U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other, smaller attacks.

[joesanunu]

I say, screw this guy and his country.

The USA is broke and borrowing money from China to give to this clown?

If Netanyahu and Israel can't get along in his neighbourhood, then hire some security.

The US has an aircraft carrier or two for hire but it ain't cheap...and we need to make a profit too.

[joesanunu]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

Quite right, the world loved the U.S. and was a paradise before GW. Never mind that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Barracks in 1996, two U.S. Embassies in one day in 1998, U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other, smaller attacks.

And those attacks you listed began when? Right after the US attacked Saddam, right?

The US military bases there are the root of the problem.

It's a fact that when the US set up the bases in Saudi to attack Iraq in 1991, it triggered BinLaden into jihad against the USA.

[telldem]

If Israel nukes Iran, would the radioactive fallout reach Thailand?

[Credo]

Netanyahu is playing the worst kind of politics as are the Republicans. He is not a nice person and he is not a dynamic speaker. He is going to try and tell the US what to do, which is not a good tactic.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief and he's not about to attack Iran, at least not at this time. If anything the visit will be counterproductive. Everyone's eyes are now on the politics and not on Iran's nuclear program.

Instead of unity; there is division. Instead of solutions, there is conflict.

[beechguy]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

Quite right, the world loved the U.S. and was a paradise before GW. Never mind that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Barracks in 1996, two U.S. Embassies in one day in 1998, U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other, smaller attacks.

And those attacks you listed began when? Right after the US attacked Saddam, right?

The US military bases there are the root of the problem.

It's a fact that when the US set up the bases in Saudi to attack Iraq in 1991, it triggered BinLaden into jihad against the USA.

If I remember correctly, we were invited by the Saudi Government. Bill Clinton was in office during all of those attacks, he wasn't able to do much, to smooth things over was he.

Netanyahu has lived in a turbulent time, I can understand why he wouldn't have much confidence in a rookie like Obama.

[Credo]

If Israel nukes Iran, would the radioactive fallout reach Thailand?

It would depend on which way the wind is blowing, but unless there is a lot of nukes released, any fallout should be relatively mild. Radiation is always tricky stuff and best avoided.

[chuckd]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

Quite right, the world loved the U.S. and was a paradise before GW. Never mind that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Barracks in 1996, two U.S. Embassies in one day in 1998, U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other, smaller attacks.

And those attacks you listed began when? Right after the US attacked Saddam, right?

The US military bases there are the root of the problem.

It's a fact that when the US set up the bases in Saudi to attack Iraq in 1991, it triggered BinLaden into jihad against the USA.

The US Military does not have a base in Saudi Arabia nor has ever had one to the best of my recollection.

When called upon, they have utilized either existing Saudi military bases or commercial airports for any actions launched from Saudi.

In 1991 they used a Saudi Navy Air Station and the newly built but unopened Dammam International airport for their land based sorties.

They lease all their facilities to house the few US military personnel assigned there in support of the Saudi military.

Edit in: Lest we forget...the Islamic Republic of Iran sanctioned the Islamic student takeover and hostage taking of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Edited March 1, 2015 by chuckd

[Neurath]

He insults American Jews as well ... who are overwhelmingly democrats.

Hes Zionist first, Israeli second and Jewish third, hes a warmongering nutjob, about time American Jews realised it.

Bibi is doing for Israel what Bush did for the US in popularity ratings aboard .... the sooner hes gone from office the safer the world will be for it.

Quite right, the world loved the U.S. and was a paradise before GW. Never mind that they tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Barracks in 1996, two U.S. Embassies in one day in 1998, U.S.S. Cole, and numerous other, smaller attacks.

And those attacks you listed began when? Right after the US attacked Saddam, right?

The US military bases there are the root of the problem.

It's a fact that when the US set up the bases in Saudi to attack Iraq in 1991, it triggered BinLaden into jihad against the USA.

The US Military does not have a base in Saudi Arabia nor has ever had one to the best of my recollection.

https://militarybases.com/saudi-arabia/

US Military Bases in Saudi Arabia.

[chuckd]

The US Military does not have a base in Saudi Arabia nor has ever had one to the best of my recollection.

https://militarybases.com/saudi-arabia/

US Military Bases in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you for that terribly incorrect reference to my post.

Of the five so-called bases listed in your link, four of them are Royal Saudi Air Force bases and the fifth one (Eskan Village) is built and owned by the Saudi government and leased to the US government to house the USMTM mission based in Riyadh.

Eskan is really quite nice. Enjoyed a few golf tournament dinners and a couple of July 4th celebrations with my wife and daughter there.

I stand behind what I said earlier

Now permit me to add back in that part which you removed from my quoted post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When called upon, they have utilized either existing Saudi military bases or commercial airports for any actions launched from Saudi.

In 1991 they used a Saudi Navy Air Station and the newly built but unopened Dammam International airport for their land based sorties.

They lease all their facilities to house the few US military personnel assigned there in support of the Saudi military.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to correct Eskan Village history.

Edited March 1, 2015 by chuckd

[Chicog]

The US Military does not have a base in Saudi Arabia nor has ever had one to the best of my recollection.

https://militarybases.com/saudi-arabia/

US Military Bases in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you for that terribly incorrect reference to my post.

Of the five so-called bases listed in your link, four of them are Royal Saudi Air Force bases and the fifth one (Eskan Village) is built and owned by the Saudi government and leased to the US government to house the USMTM mission based in Riyadh.

Eskan is really quite nice. Enjoyed a few golf tournament dinners and a couple of July 4th celebrations with my wife and daughter there.

I stand behind what I said earlier

Now permit me to add back in that part which you removed from my quoted post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When called upon, they have utilized either existing Saudi military bases or commercial airports for any actions launched from Saudi.

In 1991 they used a Saudi Navy Air Station and the newly built but unopened Dammam International airport for their land based sorties.

They lease all their facilities to house the few US military personnel assigned there in support of the Saudi military.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit in to correct Eskan Village history.

Technically I'd call something they use to launch military attacks a "base".

I just wouldn't call it a permanent base, such as the NSA in Bahrain.

But joesanunu is close enough when he says that the Iraqi invasion of '91 triggered calls for US troops to be expelled from the Gulf. But I think those calls came from Saddam first.