| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| James Baker, Baker Botts and Saudi Arabia |
| 2006-12-12 |
| Not that I'm a fan of Michael Weiner, but it is true that James Baker's Houston mega-law firm Baker Botts represents the Saudi royal family. Since Baker is heading the Iraq Study Group, why is this fact not mentioned in any of the news stories? And it's not just Baker. Google Vernon Jordan or the other members. Let's assume that the fact that members of this study group retain the Saudi royal family as their client has nothing to do with their conclusions. Doesn't the fact that they represent the largest power in the Persian Gulf make it relevant and worthy of reporting? I think it does. Go ahead and search. New York Times, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post. The only people mentioning this fact are two lefty bloggers and Michael Weiner. Conclude what you will. posted by Lou Minatti |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #8 Two Clinton Ambassadors to the terror kingdom, later became shills for the House of Saud. With Baker, the problem is: he is bound by attorney-client privilege to the Sauds. The privilege prohibits him from doing anything to their detriment, and obligates him to act to their benefit. So, how the hell can he be impartial and objective? Of course, everybody-is-doing-it is no excuse. The solution is to ban Ambassadors from future representation of foreign states, in any capacity. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-12 22:25 |
| #7 Bakers law firm has appeared to successfully either deap sixed or tied up in court forever the 911 victim's 1 trillion dollar lawsuit against the Saudi Shieks. Of course the same shieks now own %20 of FoxNews so... don't hold your breath. Now its more likely that the commies at LinkTV will report it on some show like Democracy Today. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-12-12 17:38 |
| #6 It's not reported because it fits the MSM agenda on top of that follow the money. The money will tell you who is behind this, that money has no loyalty to this nation nor it's long term interests. My opinions on lawyers are well known. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-12-12 17:18 |
| #5 I think it is likely those MSM journalists haven't a clue about Baker's connections. The disconnect between the reverence some people still hold for the New York Times and the like and the blue water of idiocy that is modern journalism is difficult to credit. Read LGF for a couple days and never go back to newsprint. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-12-12 16:20 |
| #4 Someone will take the story. It's a matter of getting it out there and letting the info get scooped. I dunno, this blog entry for instance is already almost a week old, and I had received a forwarded email (posted in the last comment here) about the Baker/Botts/saudy connection at about that time too. I don't think the msm are really interested, because they see this rapport as going "the right way". |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-12-12 16:18 |
| #3 Face it, it's all over for Baker and Hamilton. It's off to the tomb for this crew |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-12-12 16:12 |
| #2 Someone will take the story. It's a matter of getting it out there and letting the info get scooped. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-12-12 16:10 |
| #1 That James Baker works for the Saudi royal family is beyond relevant--it's revelatory. And so is the fact that the media is NOT reporting that interesting little tidbit. As far as journalism goes ( or used to go) that fact that the members of this "study group" which is purportedly aimed at directing US foreign policy in the Middle East, actually represent "the largest power in the Persian Gulf" is most definitely "newsworthy." Unreal that the news is not covering it and bringing that out in the open. Maybe someone could inform the Times and the Post. I can't. It's possible they don't know, and it might be likely since credible investigative reporting has mostly gone the way of the dinosaurs. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-12-12 16:09 |