Aid and comfort? Nah.

Mr. Auster makes a good point about the optics of President Bush consorting with the Saudi Crown Prince in the face of Saudi distribution of its foul literature in U.S. mosques.

We think he's being too hard on Mr. Bush. It's up to him to select what tools of statecraft are appropriate for the moment. He isn't the first president who chose face time with representatives of governments who smile to his face and spit at his back. There are factions within factions within the Saudi royal (?) family and it is rumored, the Saudis control a resource of some strategic value to us which has been the occasion for not a little Saudi ass kissing by our leaders in the past.

Probably a little of that was necessary along the way in the absence of clear evidence of the will amongst the American population to actually solve the problem in the Middle East and the world. (We want TIVO more than we want to drive our enemies to their knees, apparently.) Moreover, people get elected to high office by kissing ass and presumably it is what they are good at, what they enjoy, and what they are paid the big bucks to do.

It is the Colonel's suspicion, however, that Mr. Bush almost certainly did this in this instance without a clear picture of the national interest in mind.

Mr. Bush has done much good work and bless him for his pugnacious instincts in dealing with the Iraqis and, soon, the Iranians. He does not, however, hold the issue of Saudi literature sufficiently in the forefront of his mind in dealing with the Saudis, any more than he does the issue of massive illegal immigration and the assault on our sovereignty that it represents. (Mr. Auster has written lucidly on this latter issue. See our meager reference below, "Mexican invasion.")

Nor is Mr. Bush attuned to the appalling aspects of Wahhabi practice or the inconsistent, obscurantist, vicious nature of Islamic law and practice. He has yet to get real about the problem that we face, which problem is Islam and the utter failure of Muslim moderates to achieve any traction as a counterweight to the islamofascists. This latter phenomenon leads to the inescapable equation: Islam for all practical purposes = islamofascism.

The picture Mr. Auster paints with the following passage is stark and useful, nonetheless and is expressed in the context of a post about the efficacy of prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts:

Last year Freedom House published a widely discussed report detailing the vociferously anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish literature being disseminated by the Saudi government in U.S. mosques. Far from demanding of the Saudis that they stop, Bush hosted the Saudi Crown Prince at his ranch. To my mind, that was an act tantamount to treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

We have advocated the use of the Alien and Sedition Laws here. Why not vigorously pursue and hammer seditious aliens? is what we're asking.

It's a simple question.

"Are prosecutions for sedition practicable?" By Lawrence Auster, View from the Right 2/15/06.