Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 25, 2005

Bush Meats Crown Prince Abdullah

Christians detained for illegal praying in Saudi Arabia

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia has detained 40 Pakistani Christians for holding prayers at a house in the Muslim kingdom, where practicing any religion other than Islam is illegal, newspapers said yesterday.

A group of men, women and children were attending the service in the capital Riyadh when police raided the house, Al Jazirah newspaper said.

It said authorities also found Christian tapes and books.


There are hard reasons for Bush to behave this way despite the above news.
Oil prices, business connections, proselytize Abdullah, manly exuberance needs - he certainly has to set persuasive priorities.

Posted by b on April 25, 2005 at 20:26 UTC | Permalink


wherever fascism holds sway we can always be sure the bush family is not far behind

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 25 2005 20:33 utc | 1

You know; when Ariel Sharon sees this does he get jealous?

Posted by: Friendly Fire | Apr 25 2005 20:56 utc | 2

no, they all sleep in the same bed

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 25 2005 21:21 utc | 3

This is soooooo romantic

Posted by: Friendly Fire | Apr 25 2005 21:22 utc | 4

will this make bulldog throw a hissy fit & open up to queen oprah w/ all the sordid details? enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: b real | Apr 25 2005 21:30 utc | 5

What, exactly, is being blown up there? [nice work!]

Posted by: aschweig | Apr 25 2005 21:49 utc | 6

Homer: Mmmmmmmmm, bush meats.

Posted by: biklett | Apr 25 2005 22:09 utc | 7

sadly, what is a beautiful custom, men holding hands becomes besmirched when we see two tyrants doing it

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 25 2005 22:52 utc | 8

r`giap - it is beautiful if they are open to show it. It is terrible if they are both hypocrits about other people doing this.

Posted by: b | Apr 25 2005 23:01 utc | 9


Posted by: beq | Apr 26 2005 0:55 utc | 10

..wasn't there something about the left hand?

Posted by: beq | Apr 26 2005 0:57 utc | 11

Wherever fascism holds sway you can also be sure there are also sadistic male homosexuals running the show.

Posted by: jj | Apr 26 2005 2:02 utc | 12

Is anyone sure if this is real or is it Photoshop etc?

Posted by: jj | Apr 26 2005 2:04 utc | 13

well, as we can see "Commander Codpiece" was, in more ways than one, a fabrication.

When I was about ten years old, I so wanted to be all grown up (actually, I just wanted to grow breasts) that I took one of my sister's bras, stuffed a sock in each side, and thought I was the thang. I prissed around when a neighbor friend came over and she thought it was such a great idea, she did it too.

We walked to the store to buy cokes, displaying our fake sock breasts like we were midget Bardots. Then when we saw adults who knew us, we were humiliated and took out the socks and walked home flatchested.

For some reason, whenever I see Bush, I think of that story.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 26 2005 3:23 utc | 14

There are two things that when combined can never be trusted: any article dealing with religion and Sun Myung Moons Washington times!

Posted by: diogenes | Apr 26 2005 3:24 utc | 15

no, they all sleep in the same bed
You are SOOOOOOO RIGHT! Unfortunately some very intelligent people can't see that...amongst them some of my friends. I will never understand how they use propaganda for the purpose of mass hypnosis...

Posted by: vbo | Apr 26 2005 4:56 utc | 16

I think the title of this post should have read:

"Bush Mates Crown Prince Abdullah"

Posted by: stoy | Apr 26 2005 5:22 utc | 17

shit, does Condi know?

Posted by: Lord Fairfax | Apr 26 2005 6:35 utc | 18

Is that the origin of your nom de plume?

Posted by: biklett | Apr 26 2005 7:19 utc | 19


Bicklett !


Like >this ,right?

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 26 2005 9:27 utc | 20

How odd. I am reminded of when Ann Coulter watched Bush in his flight suit during "Mission Accomplished Day," she made various comments in his "package." I simply marvel on what the right wing thinks is imporant enough to publically (pubically?)comment upon.

Posted by: diogenes | Apr 26 2005 12:36 utc | 21

biklett- LOL! thankfully, I'm not ten anymore...or at least not physically. mentally...well...

yeah, anna missed, that's the idea.

and if you get all quarky-minded, it's strange to sit down on nothingness with a little bit of somethingness keeping your
you-ness in the chair, in the room, on the planet typing on a screen that represents a familiar form.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 26 2005 14:56 utc | 22

bush likes holding these encounters at the ranch where he can really just spread out, ya know?

Posted by: b real | Apr 26 2005 18:12 utc | 23

here's another pic. you can literally see the sparks. as'ad has more postings on his blog.

Posted by: b real | Apr 26 2005 18:36 utc | 24

I would rather say that you can be sure there are sadistic male misogynic homophobes running the show. Generally I think they define themselves as heterosexual men because they are dominating, not on basis on who they screw. Thus even if they screw other men they do not see themselves as homosexuals therefore not causing a contradiction with them being homophobes.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Apr 27 2005 0:55 utc | 25

here's another pic. you can literally see the sparks.

Well, I took a look at the picture, and didn't see any sparks. So, you can not "literally see the sparks".

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Eddie | Apr 27 2005 2:57 utc | 26

it helps if you do a spit-take as soon as the page loads. otherwise, "practically" would have been a better choice of words.

here's something to ponder - how does a series of images like these, taken on shrubs secured private grounds, and which are of scandalous imagery, both here & in the ME, end up in wide circulation? aren't this crew reknown for their rigorous image control, perception mgmt prowess, and overindulgent levels of secrecy? are they not sensitive to the bad image that il dunce already holds outside of select congregations, and especially cognizant of the number of pairs of eyes that will be watching the bush family relationships to the saudi elite? i get the feeling, literally, that there's more than meets the eye here.

Posted by: b real | Apr 27 2005 3:33 utc | 27


Posted by: b real | Apr 27 2005 3:38 utc | 28

Gossip. Carping. Janet Jackson’s breast. Britney’s tummy. Bush’s hand. A blue Gap dress. Gannon time-table of visits to the White House, a little list.


Tequila anyone? On me. Duct tape? Abayas - good quality mind - ? Cocktail cherries? Cast iron lemon yellow / blue / puce pots from Le Creuset? Free cruise in the Bahamas?

All run out. For now.


Posted by: Blackie | Apr 27 2005 18:09 utc | 29

having a bad day, Blackie?

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 27 2005 18:22 utc | 30

Both BushCo and the Saudis hope to maintain the status quo - the alliance is 50 or more years old and extremely useful (by now essential) to both parties. Both know that if this is not possible, then Saudi is for the pits. The US will not attack Iran but could take over Saudi in a coupla weeks. Leaving perhaps a little kingdom for the Royals around Mecca - expensive, but worth it.

The Saudis will pump to the max, arrest or shoot terrarists, bend down. What more does the US require? What more can it hope to get?

Mutual dependency. Clasp da hands.

Posted by: Blackie | Apr 27 2005 18:24 utc | 31

Yes Dan horrible. Desperate..

Posted by: Blackie | Apr 27 2005 18:25 utc | 32

how does a series of images like these, taken on shrubs secured private grounds, and which are of scandalous imagery, both here & in the ME, end up in wide circulation?

well... those of my friends who proudly sport this season's latest designs in Alcoa-wear would say that this is a deliberate leak intended to refresh the "Bad Saudis, Sinister Saudis" meme propagated by (among others) Mike Moore. the intent would presumably be to set up the Saudis (with or without the royal family's consent) as the patsy (swarthy sinister A-rabs always sell well as bad guys in Amurka) for 9/11 and any subsequent Turrist Events -- making sure that the spotlight of public suspicion/attention stays far, far away from the Rovesters and the Likudniks (those who benefited most directly and stand to benefit again from such events).

this all seems a bit baroque, sure, but compared to Abramoff's scams (I swear that man is the new Lansky), maybe not so complicated after all. in the last few years of BushCo rule we've seen enough exposed conspiracies, lies, faked documents, pre-existing plans sold under convenient current pretexts, media censorship and self-censorship, boughten agents masquerading as media, insider war profiteering, assaults on the Constitution, etc. to keep tinfoil sales robust indefinitely.

I'm thinking, Don Vito taking a stroll in the compound with the capo of a lesser famiglia -- possibly just pressing the flesh and renewing old bonds, possibly meditating on when and how to work the big betrayal.

Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 28 2005 1:25 utc | 33

their hand-holding made the cover of craig unger's book house of bush, house of saud: the secret relationship between the world's most powerful dictators, so this isn't new. the news rpt i listened to the other day said that when abdullah arrived, late & w/ a member of his entourage who just happened to be on the state dept's terrorist list, george and his prince kissed, then the prez took abdullah by his hand and showed him the blooming flowers before taking it inside. on the angry arab blog i linked to yesterday, as'ad comments on the fact that nobody paid any attention to the fact that the crown prince brought a wanted terrorist w/ him. maybe george grabbed his hand and walked through the flowers w/ abdullah to take the focus off of this fact? just a guess. so what are jeb and luis posada up to in miami tonite?

Posted by: b real | Apr 28 2005 2:40 utc | 34

Don't look at this picture if you just have eaten!!!!!!! picture

Posted by: Fran | Apr 28 2005 6:02 utc | 35

Fran. That one makes me feel faint. Whenever I see a man with the prince's particular facial hair fashion, I wonder why he would want his face to resemble a female's privates...

Posted by: beq | Apr 28 2005 13:41 utc | 36

Apologies. :/ Think before posting.

Posted by: beq | Apr 28 2005 17:17 utc | 37

The comments to this entry are closed.