For some reason, the extremely liberal Huffington Post blog has pulled out its resident Saudi-basher to lay into both the Kingdom and President Bush. Could it be related, perhaps, to the Riyadh Summit and its declaration?

There’s nothing particularly new here, just the timeworn rants of one wrapped up in conspiracy theories. I point to it simply to indicate that Saudi Arabia has a lot of work ahead of it in its efforts to explain itself to the American public. But US media could try to do its job in providing accurate information rather than create boogey men to scare the children.

Hallelujah! Saudi King Abdullah a No-Show at White House State Dinner
Raymond J. Learsy

And with the King’s absence perhaps the most insidious relationship of the Bush presidency comes to an end. It is an occasion for all Americans to celebrate.

This administration and the Bush family’s all too cozy relationship with the Saudis and their Royal Family goes back at the very least to 1986. That was the year when then Vice President George H. W. Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to plead with King Fahd to restrain oil production and in effect to reactivate a then moribund OPEC in order to protect the profit margins of the American oil industry. The almost immediate effect was the near doubling of crude oil prices within the year to $18 a barrel, the resuscitation and the de facto recognition of the OPEC cartel as an American policy protectorate — with a direct lineage reaching to today’s mid sixty dollar a barrel prices (I know there are other reasons but they all pale by comparison to the machinations of the OPEC coven)….


April:04:2007 - 08:13 | Comments & Trackbacks (4) | Permalink
4 Responses to “Huffington Post’s Saudi-Bashing”
  1. 1
    Barkley Rosser Said:
    April:04:2007 - 08:13 

    Well, it is true that then VP Bush made that trip and that plea. The Saudis had just increased production out of pique at the ongoing violations of quotas by both Iran and Iraq, busy buying arms for their war with cash, and the Saudi budget finally going seriously into deficit with the Saudis having cut back and cut back production to keep the price up over $30 per barrel. The price fell from that level rather suddenly in June and July of 1986 down to July, 1986. The upshot of this decline was a crash of real estate in Texas in particular, which had been puffed up on the assumption of continuing high oil prices. This triggered the failure of Texas savings and loans that triggered the broader banking crisis in the US that cost taxpayers over a $100 billion, and the pain was most concentrated in Texas, where then VP Bush was from, with lots of his friends hurting, even after the Saudis pushed the price back up at his request.

    I do not see much to disagree with regarding at least that portion of Huffington’s post.

  2. 2
    John Burgess Said:
    April:04:2007 - 08:13 

    I think trying to draw links of causation in this is really on the fringe. Saudi Arabia was hemorrhaging from over-budgeting and over-spending. It was clearly within its own interests to get the price of oil back up to the point is was worth selling. Take a look at Saudi budget deficits for the 80s & 90s.

    It is also a fact that US oil producers (yes, including Texans, Oklahomans, Californians, et al.) were suffering. Closing US production might have been a good idea for some at the time–and I’m sure the revenge factor after the oil lines of the 70s would have felt just fine–but it would not have been in the long term interest of either those producers or the US as a whole.

    Rather than a plot against humanity, I see this as a reasonable solution to a global problem.

  3. 3
    Andy Said:
    April:04:2007 - 08:13 

    John,

    I agree. From some of the oil analysis I read a few months ago, most of the World’s producers would like to see the price stabilize in the $50-$60 a bbl range instead of the 30-40 range historically.

    This is actually good for American since it promotes conservation and alternatives. I can still remember what the oil price crash in the early 80’s did to conservation, investment in things like shale oil, and alternative energy.

    This “article” imo is one of many that I place in the “oil cabal conspiracy” category.

  4. 4
    John Burgess Said:
    April:04:2007 - 08:13 

    I just put it in the Saudi-bashing category. Any pretext will do to reach the desired end: make the KSA as scary as possible to as many possible.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

spacer