Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Saudi War on George Bush
The American Thinker ^ | March 10, 2004 | Ed Lasky

Posted on 03/11/2004 6:44:14 AM PST by doug9732

Saudi Arabia has launched an undeclared war on George W. Bush. This simple fact must be understood by policy and strategy elites, the press, and the general electorate. Otherwise, the Saudis may well succeed in their tacit campaign to sabotage the long term success of America’s war on terror, by engineering the electoral defeat of George W. Bush in November.

President Bush has provoked this response by proclaiming his intention to encourage democracy and liberalism in the Middle East, to liberate the Arab masses from despotic rule, bring peace and prosperity to the region, and halt the spread of militant Islamic terror groups. Unlike past Presidents who, in varying degrees, paid lip service to these ideals, President Bush has acted decisively on them. His politically perilous actions, such as his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his conditioning support for a Palestinian state on the cessation of terror, corruption, and dictatorship, and his active promotion and support for liberal groups in the Arab world, have aroused Saudi fears and provoked a quiet counterattack.

George W. Bush seriously disrupted the previous cozy relationship that Saudi Arabia historically enjoyed with the Bush family -- and with Washington power brokers, in general. The Saudis feel that their family’s absolute rule over the kingdom may be endangered, and that their efforts to spread their virulent brand of Islam, Wahabbism, may be curtailed by the current Administration. The Saudi royals may well feel abandoned, and in their disillusionment have resolved to prevent a second term for George W. Bush.

The Saudis traditionally had a symbiotic relationship with the Bush family and with George H.W. Bush’s coterie among the policy elites of the Republican Party. The largesse of the Saudi royal family is legendary. The Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bander bin Sultan, has boasted of his success in cultivating powerful Americans:

If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you would be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office.

The list of ex-office holders who propagate pro-Saudi spin is a long and disgraceful one. Hume Horan is an ex-Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who is a noble exception to the rule. He says this of his former colleagues who are now on the Saudi dole:

There have been some people who really do go on the Saudi payroll and work as advisors and consultants. Prince Bandar is very good about massaging and promoting relationships like that.

This phenomenon becomes self-evident in charting the history of Bush I and his White House staffers. Former President Bush I traveled the lecture circuit in Arab lands, earning upwards of $100,000 an appearance. Sentiment-tinged gifts to his Presidential Library and $500,000 to fund a scholarship in his name at Phillips Academy Andover (son George W’s preparatory school, not coincidentally) are certainly important, but pale in comparison to his profits from participating in the Carlyle Group.

The Carlyle Group is a supremely successful merchant bank, which also has James Baker (Bush I consiglieri) and Brent Scowcroft (Bush I National Security Adviser) as partners. This particular investment group has enjoyed access to investment funds from the Saudi royal family. Undoubtedly, the triumvirate of former officials, none of them previously renowned for investment prowess, has handsomely prospered from the arrangement.

One-sided relationships are fleeting and rare in the political world, and one is entitled to ask what the Saudis have received in return for their munificent gestures. Publicly, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft have written editorials critical of the approach Bush II has taken towards the Middle East (particularly his support for Israel and regime change in the dictatorships that rule the Arab world). The New York Times reported in 2001 that Bush I had phoned the Saudis in Bush IIs’s presence, and assured them that his son would do the “right thing” with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Presumably, this meant pressuring the Israelis.

This sort of arrangement, a comforting one for the Saudis, whose sybaritic lifestyles promoted a level of comfort unknown to all but a few human beings in the history of mankind, began to end as the two Boeing 767s approached the World Trade Center on that fateful morning over two years ago.

The terror attacks convinced George W. Bush that America’s approach to the Middle East needed to be drastically changed, to ensure America’s safety. His campaign to oust the Taliban from theocratic rule in Afghanistan and his defeat of Saddam Hussein sent a message to the Saudis that “business as usual” was a thing of the past. In calling for liberalism throughout the Arab world and for the acceptance of other religions, Bush challenged the support structure of the Saudi royal family, whose legitimacy is predicated on their role as defender of Islam’s holy sites and propagator of the faith.

Much more importantly, in severing the ties that once bound, Bush II has declared that the ties of filial duty, which both animate and constrain the dynamics of the Saudi royal family, do not matter so much in his family. Not anymore, at least, no matter what the former appearances. In doing so, George Bush has become an apostate to the Saudis. It is not merely a matter of interests, but rather an issue of deep principle, fundamentally linked to their own way of life, and to their survival.

From the vantage point of the Saudis, Bush II is not just unreliable, but also a danger. He is a self-identified born-again Christian, and is closely allied with the religious wing of the Republican Party. In a theocratic nation which forbids the practice of Christianity, a leader linked to rival religion is anathema. In their eyes (as well as those of some of President Bush’s most ardent opponents) he may seem to be something of a theocrat himself, but from a longstanding historical rival religion.

When the President’s Christian moorings are combined with the exaggerated role that Jewish neo-cons supposedly have in the White House (once again the fevered imaginations of the Saudis bear some resemblance to those of the President’s most extreme domestic antagonists), trouble of the most fundamental sort looms for their regime. All along, the fanatic Wahabbi wing of the clergy has preached that a holy war exists with the West, and that accommodation with the infidels can only be a tactical pause in the eventual all-out war. From their perspective, it is easy to understand why George W. Bush -- the Christian “puppet of the Jews,” and thus the embodiment of Wahabbi nightmares -- needs to be removed from office.

How have the Saudis acted to destroy George Bush’s political career? By using the “oil weapon” to torpedo the American economy over the next eight months, and thereby weaken electoral support for George W. Bush’s candidacy in November.

The Saudis have traditionally been a swing producer within OPEC, acting to ensure oil prices remain “just so -- not too high, not too low” by increasing or decreasing their marginal production. Oil prices which are too high may encourage conservation and the development of alternative energy supplies. Prices which are too high also weaken the Western economies where Saudi Arabia’s investments must be parked.

However, this historical concern seems to have been trumped by Saudi short term desires to inflict as much pain on the American economy as it can, by raising oil prices in the run-up to November.

By restricting OPEC output since the end of hostilities in Iraq, the Saudis have forced oil prices up over the past several months. The American economic recovery is being slowly, almost imperceptibly, throttled. From a low of $23.61 per barrel in May, 2003, average crude oil prices have risen rather steadily, to $31.03 last month, up nearly one-third in eight months. If this rate of increase continues over the next eight months, the economic consequences for America will be grim.

Jobs are not being created at the expected rate, and increasing voter dissatisfaction with the President is shown in public opinion polling, with jobs and the economy heading the list of concerns. Additionally, the Saudis may have been reducing their holdings of petrodollars and converting them into non-dollar denominated assets. This has hurt the value of the dollar. Money flows are difficult to follow, and currency manipulation may have unintended consequences, but a proxy for the Saudi desire to hurt America may be seen in the increasing number of oil field contracts going to non-US companies.

The other factor which may hurt Bush’s chances for reelection is the situation in Iraq. Terrorists have been streaming in from Saudi Arabia, to wreak havoc and fund terror groups, despite protestations to the contrary by Saudi spinmeisters. Although attacks have been trending downward, an increase over the next several months would trigger renewed cries of “quagmire!”

On the domestic front, Saudi-funded think tanks such as the Meridian International Center and the Middle East Institute have been a fount of op-ed writers and experts on cable news channels, who criticize President Bush. The Middle East Institute (headed by ex-Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Edward Walker) is the home of one of President Bush’s fiercest critics, Joseph Wilson. Mr. Wilson was at the center of a scandal that plagued the White House when Wilson charged that the White House had leaked to columnist Robert Novak the information that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent, thereby putatively endangering her.

Wilson has proudly declared that his goal in life is to destroy George Bush’s Presidency. It is telling that this man, who has no campaign experience, was recently hired by the Kerry campaign. Given that Wilson is also a fierce critic of Israel, the Saudis seem to have spent their money wisely.

The Saudis require stealth for their plan to succeed. They cannot be seen to be suddenly, openly, and catastrophically retaliating against President Bush, as OPEC did with its 1973 oil boycott in the wake of Israeli victory in war. The American public is in no mood to be pushed around by feudal Arab regimes. Instead, they have opted to quietly tighten the noose on the American economy, hoping to escape public blame.

The Bush Administration, which still needs to deal with the Saudis, and many other repressive Arab regimes on the receiving end of Saudi largesse, undoubtedly perceives what is going on, but is constrained by the norms of diplomacy from openly acknowledging the reality of the situation. Voices urging accommodation with the Saudis are still heard within the State Department and elsewhere in the foreign policy apparatus.

Neither the Bush Administration nor the Saudis can afford to have explicit and open conflict disrupt important ongoing common interests. Third parties also depend on the smooth flow of oil to markets. Nobody wants a cessation of Saudi oil exports or any other extreme measures, which could cripple America economically, and disrupt our military readiness, not to mention the disastrous consequences for poorer countries.

Nevertheless, it appears to be the case that the Saudis are engaged in a silent slow motion war with George W. Bush’s Administration, aimed at limiting his Presidency to a single term. If they continue with this plan, Republicans can take nothing for granted in November.

Ed Lasky


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; bushdoctrine; electionpresident; gasprices; gwb2004; oil; oilelection; sabotage; saudi; saudiarabia; war

1 posted on 03/11/2004 6:44:14 AM PST by doug9732
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug9732
Nobody wants a cessation of Saudi oil exports which could cripple America economically, and disrupt our military readiness

Pretty much be an attack on our national interest and national security....I say let them go for it....

2 posted on 03/11/2004 6:50:36 AM PST by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
Well, good. Perhaps this is a permananet fracture in our indefensible 'cozy', preferential. and 'look the other-way' foreign relations with the two-faced Saudis.

3 posted on 03/11/2004 6:57:08 AM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
This article is the truth. I agree with the author.

Kerry is the best ally of the Jihadists. He must be defeated.
4 posted on 03/11/2004 6:57:12 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
If the Saudi's do this, G.W. should use it as a campaign running point.

The U.S. economy should not be threatened by foreign interests. We should use this as an opportunity to emphasize more exploration and developement of energy resources.

We should open up A.N.W.A.R. for oil drilling, open more exploration in the Gulf and off the California coast. It can be done safely, with minimal risk to the environment, in order to secure energy independence until science and technology can discover cleaner, cheaper sources of energy for our needs.

We should also open up the low sulpher coal fields that the Clinton administration made off limits by illegal means declaring the area a national park/historic antiquity by executive order, bypassing normal proceedures mandated by law.

Maybe we can make the Saudi's think twice about blackmailing the U.S. with oil. The more independent we become, the less oil they can sell, the weaker their power and hold on the world becomes.

5 posted on 03/11/2004 7:05:25 AM PST by BB2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
I think Bush has been expecting this. He's steadily moved our dependancy of oil from Saudi to Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, and others.
6 posted on 03/11/2004 7:08:38 AM PST by DeuceTraveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BB2
That is exactly what is happening. An oil price of $35 per bbl makes no sense--especially when Iraqi oil is back to 3.2 MMBO per day. There should be a glut of oil, instead of a shortage. Would the Saudis do it? The last time was in 1973, when we supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War. I believe that is exactly what they are doing. I have been in the Oil Business for a long time--and am very aware that the Saudis view their production as a carrot and a stick--they ran the price down during the time of Bush 1 and Clinton (both to prop them up, and to try to destroy the American oil industry.) They have never been or never will be our friends.
7 posted on 03/11/2004 7:16:28 AM PST by richardtavor (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem in the name of the G-d of Jacob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
How have the Saudis acted to destroy George Bush’s political career? By using the “oil weapon” to torpedo the American economy over the next eight months

. . . it appears to be the case that the Saudis are engaged in a silent slow motion war with George W. Bush’s Administration, aimed at limiting his Presidency to a single term. If they continue with this plan, Republicans can take nothing for granted in November.

This is in fact the reverse of what the Saudis did for Reagan, after Reagan loudly declaimed that the Saudis had our support in their own military defense - and that policy was pivotal in simultaneously boosting our economy and subverting that of the (oil-exporting) Soviet Union.

We have an oil weapon of our own, for the short term and the long. In the long term Iraq has reserves in the same class as Saudi Arabia's, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is therefore unlikely ever to be more valuable in the long run than it is right now, in the short term of the next few months. I said before, and I repeat,

When will we ever get beneficial use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if not at a time when it will help us, and when we yet have good assurance that its depletion will not leave us excessively exposed to the Saudi oil weapon?

8 posted on 03/11/2004 7:19:47 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BB2
W can scream at the top of his lung all he wants, BUT if the media whores DO NOT report and blame the Saudis, the message is lost and the sheeple will blame W for the gas prices! You know this is one piece of GREAT news for the WHORES to use against W! They continue to blame him for EVERYTHING under the sun. So sad the pen is mightier than the truth in this case!
9 posted on 03/11/2004 7:20:01 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
The Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bander bin Sultan,Hasan bin Sobar [doorman at the Oasis Hotel in New York part time] has boasted of his success in cultivating powerful Americans:.....

For all you Stooge fans!

10 posted on 03/11/2004 7:22:03 AM PST by Indie (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
ping
11 posted on 03/11/2004 7:23:47 AM PST by thoughtomator (Political Correctness is fascism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indie
For all you Stooge fans!

Most appropriate, what with all the Saudi "Malice in the Palace".

12 posted on 03/11/2004 7:30:44 AM PST by Charles Martel (Liberals are the crab grass in the lawn of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
We need to open ANWR fer drilling...I realize it won't help much in the short-term, but we cannot continue to allow despotic regimes to have this much control over our economic future.

Good find...MUD

13 posted on 03/11/2004 7:33:42 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hannity; Rush Limbaugh; OReilly; holdonnow; M. Thatcher
Worth reading...the steady rise in prices at the pump ain't no accident...MUD
14 posted on 03/11/2004 7:40:15 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
I have noticed since W has been president that oil prices go up everytime there is a tax refund. It happened in 2001 when there was a tax rebate. It happened last year when there was a tax rebate. It has happened this year when big tax refunds were returned to the middle class. Anything to slow the economy and any economic boom that could result from consumers putting their money in the market. But I'm just a housewife.
15 posted on 03/11/2004 7:41:42 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
I believe this is why Bush went after Iraq first rather than Iran and Syria--so we could confront the Saudis down the line with the Iraqi oil fields under our control. And it's one reason why the Saudis are supporting the sabotage in Iraq--to delay our efforts to rebuild Iraq's oil production.

Everything changed after 9/11. The House of Saud will inevitably fall, whether they like it or not. They have brought about their own destruction. Their one chance was to play ball with us in rounding up the terrorists, and they have absolutely refused to cooperate in any way.

Bush needs to reach out to Putin, who is divided on these matters. Putin will do much better with Bush as an ally against our common enemy, Islamic terrorism. A weakened United States cooperating with the EuroWeasels under John Kerry is not in Russia's long-range interest. Russia has helped us before by increasing oil exports. Hopefully they will do so again. The timing is crucial.
16 posted on 03/11/2004 7:42:48 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Gee. That would be a brilliant thing to with an American Army right next door in Iraq. I wonder how long it would take to route the Saudi military and grab the oil fields, refineries and terminals?
17 posted on 03/11/2004 7:43:10 AM PST by Little Ray (John eFfing Kerry: Just a Gigolo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
"I wonder how long it would take to route the Saudi military and grab the oil fields, refineries and terminals?"

It'd be a matter of days, but would be a public relations disaster. The best thing we can do is get the word out on this, as I don't believe American voters will take to kindly to foreign despots manipulating our national elections. Simulataneously, we must reach out to alternate oil sources, and let the sheiks know that once we learn to get by without them, our dependence on them will not be easily reestablished.

FReegards...MUD

18 posted on 03/11/2004 7:50:19 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: doug9732; Shermy
Good article. Parallels some of the things we've been saying.
19 posted on 03/11/2004 7:58:07 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
The saudis want to torpedo a peaceful democracy in Iraq. Iraq could produce as much oil as Saudi Arabia. As long as saddam was building palaces, not building the Iraqi oil infrastructure, and not threatening Saudi Arabia, the sauid's were happy.

Now with the double threat of a free and prosperous Iraq and a competitior to the saudis as the "swing" oil producer, the house of saud has decided to do it's best to try to defeat Bush, IMO. Kerry will abandon Iraq and the saudi's hope that Iraq will go back into a "controlled chaos" that will not threaten the house saud rule or become a rival oil producer.

20 posted on 03/11/2004 7:58:39 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
Big Bump!
21 posted on 03/11/2004 8:10:22 AM PST by Helms (The Media Elites and DNC nearly cost us Our Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
If you launched a media blitz that emphasized
1. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis
2. Saudi support for some of those hijackers
3. Saudi attempts at manipulating economy and elections
4. The hate preached by the Saudi state relgion against the US

you might stir up a little justifiable racism. While the euroweenies might scream, Americans (the only folks who matter...) might buy it.

Personally, I'd rather buy oil from Russia and boost their economy, though. Do they have enough to sell it to us?
22 posted on 03/11/2004 8:19:05 AM PST by Little Ray (John eFfing Kerry: Just a Gigolo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
Might it also make sense to stop commuting in all those 16 MPG SUVs? Might the populatiry of these vehicles be increasing the demand side of the equation, just as usage from China and India also are pushing up demand?
23 posted on 03/11/2004 8:19:31 AM PST by Liberty Tree Surgeon (Buy American, the Nation you save may be your own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Iraq could produce as much oil as Saudi Arabia."

Is that actually true?! I was under the impression that one of the reasons Hussein went into Kuwait was because Iraq's reserves were relatively paltry in comparison to some of her neighbors.

FReegards...MUD

24 posted on 03/11/2004 8:23:21 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: doug9732; Shermy; swarthyguy
The article points out something that hasn't been obvious to everyone, I periodically hear people calling for us to declare war on the Saudis. In effect, we did that right after 9/11. Its just no one here noticed, but you can bet the Saudis noticed.

Until 9/11 Al Qaeda was in effect a Saudi operation, tolerated by both the US and funded by the Saudis. Every insurgency from the Balkans across Asia to the Philippines has had Saudi funding, and had its members trained in Bin Ladin's camps. This is why neither Clinton nor Riyadh wanted to arrest Bin Ladin when he was offered by Sudan.

Clinton's policy was to slap at Bin Ladin if he went off the reservation and attacked US assets, but otherwise to leave him alone.

This policy originally arose out of the anti-soviet strategy of using muslim insurgents to dismantle the Soviet Union, but due to a lot of reasons the policy took on a life of its own after the Soviet Union collapsed. Not least among them is that generations of American public servants have had their retirement portfolio secured by Saudi investments that don't necessarily show up on any IRS form.

Bush Junior shifted gears almost from the time he came into office and embraced Putin and Putin's war against the Chechens, another Saudi subsidiary operation. After 9/11, though, GW has attacked Saudi operations one after another, overturning the Taliban and Bin Ladin and seizing Afghanistan from them, training forces in every one of the Central Asian republics to go after local Al Qaeda afiliates, attacking Abu Sayaf in the Philippines, going into Yemen and Somalia after them. Between Putin and GW, its been a bad couple of years for Saudi trigger pullers.

With the overthrow of Saddam, Bush has freed the US from its reliance on Saudi territory, and we've withdrawn our forces from there. That is an element of the invasion of Iraq few have noticed; during the nineties we were trapped by our need for Saudi cooperation so we could defend those same Saudis from Saddam. This has overshadowed our whole middle east policy for over a decade. By taking Baghdad, Bush has cut that knot and freed us from Riyadh, and Riyadh is feeling the cold wind blowing.

You will not see an open war unless you pay attention, because the ties between us are too complicated. Remember the list of 270 names found in Baghdad, listing those who had received bribes from Iraq, and know that whatever Iraq had in its files is nothing compared to what the Saudis have in theirs. So as wars go this one is going to be fought out very smoothly, through PR firms, through the political process as candidates position themselves for Saudi campaign money, and in the shadows where trigger pullers meet their end. It will be the weirdest war ever fought, no one will notice it, and it will end with Bush gone, or the Sauds overthrown.
25 posted on 03/11/2004 8:24:11 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
"Personally, I'd rather buy oil from Russia and boost their economy, though. Do they have enough to sell it to us?"

I'm not sure how much Russia can ratchet up production in the short-term, but with oil at over $30/barrel, you'd think a lot of folks would be gearing up production as much as they could. Sure do wish we were doing a better job in utilizing our American reserves.

FReegards...MUD

26 posted on 03/11/2004 8:27:21 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Is that actually true?! I was under the impression that one of the reasons Hussein went into Kuwait was because Iraq's reserves were relatively paltry in comparison to some of her neighbors

Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world and a good infratructure could have them producing up to 7-9 million barrels a day, I beleive.

The reason saddam went into Kuwait and then into Saudi Arabia was to corenr the oil market. Saddam used the paltry reserve as an excuse to invade Kuwait.

27 posted on 03/11/2004 8:27:33 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
The Saudis were responsible for 9/11, and yet Bush II let them off the hook. He let a plain load of their citizens; including Bin Laden relatives leave the US, as our citizens were not allowed to fly. The first bombs should have been on this filthy desert barbarian regime. Bush failed us by focusing on Iraq instead of focusing on Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
28 posted on 03/11/2004 8:31:11 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world and a good infratructure could have them producing up to 7-9 million barrels a day..."

Good to know...wonder how progress is going in rebuilding Iraq's oil-producing infrastructure so that we can start seeing Iraq provide a counter-balance to the Saudi's mischief-making?

FReegards...MUD

29 posted on 03/11/2004 8:31:52 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
"Bush failed us by focusing on Iraq instead of focusing on Saudi Arabia, and Iran."

I disagree...we are making progress in both Saudi Arabia and Iran simply by creating a MidEast beachhead in Iraq. We had an immediate justification for going into Iraq based on Soddom's flouting of the UN. Saudi Arabia and Iran, however, will be addressed with a more nuanced approach, wherein we subtly encourage the growing freedom forces to flourish and hopefully overthrow their despotic rulers. Even with the well-established Saudi link to 9/11, we wouldda had a hard time justifying an Iraqi-like invasion of that country, imho.

FReegards...MUD

30 posted on 03/11/2004 8:41:36 AM PST by Mudboy Slim (RE-IMPEACH Osama bil Clinton!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why is the US allowing Iraq to remain a member of the OPEC cartel?
31 posted on 03/11/2004 8:42:17 AM PST by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
Why is the US allowing Iraq to remain a member of the OPEC cartel?

Have no idea. Although Iraq is exempt from Opec quotas at the current time.

JMO, but once Iraq can pump more oil they are going to try to sell as much as possible to bolster their economy.

32 posted on 03/11/2004 9:21:35 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: marron
Overall I agree but it will all be for naught if the Saudi oil weapon reaches high gear this summer and gas prices go throough the roof.

Between jobs and gas, there is serious trouble brewing.

So far, the Saudi issue has not been raised in the campaign. The complexities of the Bush strategy could make it simple to demagogue the issue.

33 posted on 03/11/2004 9:50:12 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Even with the well-established Saudi link to 9/11, we wouldda had a hard time justifying an Iraqi-like invasion of that country, imho.

I disagree. First we had forces in and around Saudi Arabia, second, we trained the Saudi military, and could have counted on them to back us against their rulers, and third, the rest of the world was in chock as to the extent of the World Trade Center tragedy, and the Saudi citizens Jihadists, to the extent that most European intelligentsia say they would have backed us.

The fact that we did not invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq remains because of well connected people in Washington still are on the Saudi payroll, and provide lobbying, and public relation for them. Saddam was a wounded dog, and easy to kick around at will.

The real source of Islamic terrorism is fanatic Islam as it is being spewed by Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Actually, even Moslem nations were very much aware that the Saudis were behind that attack on America. In addition, the Saudi royal family are not admired anywhere, so taking them on would have been simpler than the so called experts may have thought.

34 posted on 03/11/2004 10:12:22 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
BUMP. NO BS reasons for protecting Saudi allowed.

It's only about money and the DC gravy train.

Are we scared of the Saudi army?

Bush's saving grace on this one is that the Saudis spread their largesse in a bipartisan fashion making sure that very few people ever call them for 9.11.
35 posted on 03/11/2004 11:07:04 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Thanks for seeing the truth. Take the ragheads down, and replace them with moderate ragheads.

Speaking of ragheads, what is it with God and hair? Why does God creats our hair, and turn back and orders us to cover it. Jews do, Moslems do, and even old fashion Christians do. Whats with that?

36 posted on 03/11/2004 11:20:29 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
God is bald?
37 posted on 03/11/2004 11:27:45 AM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Although I've only heard it a few times, it's been said that Iraq has more oil than Saudi Arabia......if it's true, the Saudis are crapping in their collective pants.

The last thing they want is competition, especially U.S. backed competition.

38 posted on 03/11/2004 11:52:28 AM PST by kahoutek ((A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
bump for weekend
39 posted on 03/11/2004 11:02:17 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
BTTT
40 posted on 03/12/2004 8:05:49 AM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Iraq may in fact have more oil than Saudi Arabia: nobody has gauged how much is in the Western Fields...

The interesting question is whether Haliburton can get the Iraqi oil flowing in time to keep the prices reasonable...

41 posted on 03/15/2004 3:40:49 PM PST by Meldrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400050219/103-9409199-5037463?v=glance
42 posted on 03/19/2004 5:50:10 AM PST by optik_b (follow the money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
"Might it also make sense to stop commuting in all those 16 MPG SUVs? Might the popularity of these vehicles be increasing the demand side of the equation, just as usage from China and India also are pushing up demand?" --Liberty Tree Surgeon

I was amused that nobody replied to your post. Maybe they are all in Denali, I mean denial!

43 posted on 03/28/2004 10:58:51 PM PST by Dick Holmes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
The Saudis can cause alot more domestic political trouble than George Soros. They have more money.

Perhaps the Saudis and Soros are already cooperating ... Simon & Shuster, CBS, Richard Clarke ...

44 posted on 03/28/2004 11:07:54 PM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
One the best posts in regards to SA that I have read.

Thank you for the info.
BC
45 posted on 03/30/2004 1:34:24 PM PST by BayouCoyote (In all, 561 Serb houses were set on fire and 35 Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
The week after 911, Prince Bandar ran a 8 page full color ad in the Wall Street Journal, praising Bush and showing photographs of Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan embracing various members of the Saudi government.

The ads also ran a story about how the Saudi royals came to power, "defeating a much greater enemy through stealth and surprise". Frankly, it almost felt like a commercial for their success on 911.

Bush better not be neogitating with these people, and any friendship needs to be broken off immediately. Any ideas when this started? Did Bush distance himself from the Sauds before or after 911?

46 posted on 04/19/2004 7:16:19 AM PDT by WhoCountsTheVotes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug9732
BUMP
47 posted on 05/13/2004 11:28:03 AM PDT by kitkat ("The democrats would rather win the WH than the war." - Tom DeLay))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson