That's probably a safe assumption.  I would be very surprised at any attempt to deploy regular troops since the Dems would have a field day.  It's sad that the political considerations carry so much weight.  I wouldn't be shocked at seeing Chavez cut off economically just to see how much support he'd get from Ecuador and Iran.  I don't think the Saudi government would give him any overt support as they want to continue the pretense of being allies.

It is to their political and economic advantage to draw our attention in as many different directions as possible.  The Saudi government is not our friend, although I wouldn't say the same about Saudis in general.  Same with Iran and Venezuela actually.

Which is why they won't support him overtly.  They have been supporting him covertly for quite a while, for just that reason... to make him a large enough problem that it draws our attention.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.  The belief in that little maxim being absolute is what brings us Rush Limbaugh supporting Hillary Clinton.  I don't subscribe to it and believe the enemy of my enemy is potentially useful.  Neither friend nor enemy until I decide.

Actually, I think they're a little blind to Saudi machinations because of their personal ties.  You don't want to believe bad things about people you like, and the Saudis can be very personable as individuals.  I think we've just been relatively fortunate that the Saudis want to appear our ally instead of overtly opposing us.  They don't like us, our way of government, our laws, or our way of life.  Radical Islam began with them and will end with them.  Once they decide to overtly seek a global caliphate, Iran will be their best friend.

In the Middle East the Saudis run the show (with rambunctious children as part of the act, so things don't always go exactly as they wish.)  Like parents however, they set the direction of the family and make the final decisions, backed by the family wealth.  The other problem countries in the ME are symptoms of the real problem originating in SA... Radical Islam.

Would I do anything different with the Saudis?  I don't honestly know enough to say.  I would need a lot more information before considering any changes.

The definition applies no matter what party is in charge, right?  Yet, the MSM gets to change the definition to smear a conservative administration.  That's what bugs me about it.

There is an ebb and flow to national economics and the free market.  If recession were defined more narrowly, investors and business would be more cautious than necessary, just because the word recession has such a chilling effect.  You hear it and think "depression", then "The Great Depression".  The MSM uses that chilling effect to sabotage the economy and tries to make the administration look bad.

They should be called on it by someone, so I do it when I see it.

Just sayin' 

Fair enough sir.  I would contend that a local paper or news outlet would be justified (if technically incorrect) in applying the term recession to their area.  My objections are to the national media distorting the definition for their own ends (sell papers, bash the administration, advocating legislation that benefits them or their supporters, etc..)

When they go so far as to "adjust for inflation" to make positive numbers appear to be negative numbers it's even worse.  I have a lot of difficulty with the fact that journalistic integrity has become the exception, rather than the rule.