According to Bob Woodward, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has promised President George W. Bush the Saudis will reduce oil prices before this November’s election “to help the U.S. economy”.
If it is true that the Saudi Royal family and GWB are old buddies, could they have decided together earlier this year to cut down Saudi oil production to jack up the oil prices, and then as the election gets near, the Saudis would increase production so that the prices fall down, just at the right time, so that the American voters cast their votes for the hero in the White House who brought the oil prices down?
Oil prices are “high, and they could go down very quickly,” Woodward said in Sunday night’s interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”
“That’s the Saudi pledge,” said Woodward. “Certainly over the summer or as we get closer to the election they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.”
If the above is true, who’s been screwed at the pumps for the past months?
Does anyone see something terribly fishy out here? Almost to the point of being treasonous? If this is true, could you provide some cites and possibly move this issue to the Great Debates?
If this is true, we are talking about price fixing at the highest levels of the government merely for political gains at the cost of ordinary citizens. That is outrageous. Why isn’t there an investigation of such violation of anti trust laws?
**If ** it’s true, than the actions taken are all on the part of the Sauds, not GW Bush or his administration. I’m not Bush fan, and this is certainly very sketchy **(if true!), ** but we have limited influence over a foreign power. If they want to help us, and wait to a certain time to do it, that’s their choice.
The story is fishy on its face. It’s understandable GWB might want oil prices to decline near the time of the election, but why would he want them raised and be higher than before, months of the election year?
GWB was not a decider either. At best(or worst) he was advocate of a particular production level change or timing.
The story would ring truer if there was included in it a purpose to the rise, or something of value Bush gave to the Saudis in exchange for their alledged agreement. But the story is silient on these points.
The story doesn’t provide a basis for investigation–if true how would one investigate a one on one verbal agreement not including subordinates, particularly given the positions of the parties of the “decision.”?
Well, Prince Bandar was on Larry King live monday and denied any conspiratorial dealings claiming this was all S.O.P.
“We hoped that the oil prices will stay low, because that’s good for America’s economy, but more important, it’s good for our economy and the international economy,” he said. “This is nothing unusual. President Clinton asked us to keep the prices down in the year 2000. In fact, I can go back to 1979, President Carter asked us to keep the prices down to avoid the malaise.”
I suspect that this will have little traction with the relatively small number of undecided voters but will resonate well with those who have already decided that Woodward cannot tell a lie and Bush cannot tell the truth.
Thank you Ennui for the Link which contained the following:
The three top Democrats in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Democratic Caucus Chair Bob Menendez of New Jersey, sent a letter to the White House demanding that Bush “fully explain the agreement that you or your administration reached with the Saudis to boost oil production and disclose any promises or commitments that have been made to the Saudis on behalf of the U.S.”
At least some people in Congress have already addressed the issue. That’s good enough for me to back out from my suspicion. Question answered. Thread closed.