From: Ad 

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20187

Oh you have to admire the spinmeisters at times.

If only they'd been on the titanic, they could have saved the ship by
papering over the gashes & holes...

" The United States on Thursday expressed surprise at Saudi King
Abdullah's sharp criticism of the Iraq war and sought a
"clarification," as US officials acknowledged a chill in
relations with Riyadh.

The staunch allies -- who have trumpeted their cooperation against
terrorism since the September 11, 2001 attacks -- also disagreed on Saudi
Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal's questioning whether Israel wants Middle
East peace.

For a second straight day, Washington firmly rejected the king's
description of the US presence in strife-torn Iraq as "an illegitimate
foreign occupation", the US denying both that it was illegitimate or
even an occupation.

"We were a little surprised to see those remarks. We disagree with
them," the US State Department's number three, Under Secretary of
State Nicholas Burns, told the US Congress.

"Obviously, we will seek clarification," he said, noting the
annual United Nations vote approving the US troop presence and suggesting
that the king's comments could have been misconstrued or misreported.

At the White House, spokeswoman Dana Perino downplayed talk of a rift
between Washington and its staunch Arab ally but allowed: "In any
relationship, there are ebbs and flows."

Asked whether that meant that relations were currently at an ebb, Perino
replied: "Yes.""

Why the surprise? Or is that std spin-speak for "we knew this is how
he felt, we'd just hoped he'd not mention it in public..."


"Questioned about the king's characterization of the US military
presence in Iraq, Perino told reporters that "it is not accurate to
say the United States is occupying Iraq" and said that it was
"certainly not" illegitimate.

"We are there at the invitation of the sovereign government of Iraq,
that was democratically elected," said Perino, who added that the
March 2003 US-led invasion was legitimate "under the UN Security
Council resolutions.""

Again it's like can't...meaning can't...if you've been properly invited in
(as say the Soviets were into Afghanistan) then why the need for trying to
legitimize the invasion unless the invasion were the real
"legitimacy"?

  Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5