Comments on: The friend of my enemy is (x)

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:29:08 +0000

I like the fact that the same people who are going around advocating scepticism towards news reports are the same ones who’ll take the word of a Saudi Prince – the emissiary of a basically hostile power – to settle things. Especially when the statement in question is blatantly false. If it was in their interests to keep prices down they wouldn’t be running the world’s biggest cartel.

By: david

david — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:19:28 +0000

It was misreported. Bob didn’t write that there was any secret meeting, and look at what Saudi Ambassador Bin Sultan said: “I think the way that Bob said it now is accurate. 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, and this is not—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. So yes, it’s in our interests and in America’s interests to keep the prices down.” ( http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html ) It’s time to nip this thing in the bud.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:13:47 +0000

I’m still waiting to see even a scrap of evidence that this allegation of Woodward’s is actually true. Or is that irrellevant compared to it’s political utility?

By: marky

marky — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:49:57 +0000

Whoops, sorry about that. Got an error message the first time.. didn’t check if i got posted after that.

By: marky

marky — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:48:57 +0000

Unfortunately, a large chunk of the public will simply see that Bush got them lower oil prices, and think no further. I think it’s time to start talking straight with our neighbors, unpleasant as the task may be. “John, if you decide your vote on the price of gas, you are an idiot” but put nicer:)

By: marky

marky — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:48:42 +0000

By: John

John — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:11:23 +0000

Roger, I agree with just about everything you said. I think what irks me as a voter is that the Saudi’s are attempting to favor one party in our electoral politics. What makes it even worse is the fact that this is being done with the backdrop you alluded to, years of questionable policies. It is true that the U.S. has done this and more in countries across the globe, but that doesn’t make it any more palatable when this game is played on us. It reminds me of the old deal Kissinger worked out with the Vietnamese to torpedo the Democrats. So, my point is, despite the widespread practice of countries attempting to manipulate foreign elections (this sounds like a Toffler argument for international govt.), I think it is entirely innappropriate for these things to go on at the request of the party in power.

By: David

David — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:18:28 +0000

Has anyone bothered to evaluate the claim for truth? It’s really odd to see a blizzard of conspiracy theories spun around Bush in the absence of hard evidence, while a mountain of evidence showing Clintons’ mechanizations is dismissed. What happened to logic and skepticism?

By: roger

roger — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:17:15 +0000

Dear John, I agree with the renewable energy part of this: “If we reject the President’s assertions, as I believe we should, it still makes sense that we should expect the Saudis to curtail any efforts supporting these terrorist groups. If they fail to do so, why should we continue to hold them in our favor? Ahhh, oil. Perhaps we should think this renewable energy thing over.” I also think that the Saudi elite is confused. They have pursued politics the traditional way—buying off their enemies, or buying friends to attack them. Now they confront a situation in which those two policies have fatally crossed. Plus, they have put in thirty years of misrule, and squandered their country’s resources in incredibily bad investments. Saudi Arabia has no future without oil—this is the most damning thing you can say about the Saudi elite. But I don’t see anything evil about lowering oil prices to effect the politics of another country. In fact, it is the standard procedure for US governments—we are always trying to influence the governments of other nations using soft pressure. Getting highly indignant when it is applied to us seems funny to me. As for the big picture energy issue—if we had a sane President, we would be pursuing hydrogen power full bore right now.

By: Robert Lyman

Robert Lyman — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:14:36 +0000

Ted, Setting aside the JOOOOOS nonsense above, what’s the problem with Bush trying to keep the price of oil down? I’m opposed to using oil prices to manipulate the election; that’s why I didn’t like it when Clinton dipped into our strategic reserves in 2000 to drive prices down (remember that?). But I don’t have a problem with Bush using “family pull” to keep prices down, which after all is good for the economy and low-income working people. Kerry has complained about high gas prices, but does he have the pull to exercise this kind of “subtle diplomacy” with family friends? None of this is to take away from the entirely correct point that the Saudis are really key to terrorism and need to be confronted. But the price of gas does matter, so the time and place of the confrontation must be picked carefully (I’m thinking, after Iraq is stable and pumping oil would be a great time, what do you say to that? Kinda makes the Iraq war seem less crazy, no?)

By: J-Marie

J-Marie — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:37:09 +0000

And give thanks we aren’t having this discussion in person. Thinking of your 72 virgins?

By: Marco

Marco — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:43:56 +0000

Dammit. I don’t suppose I could say I was being ironic? Hypocrite lecteur.

By: msg

msg — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 05:26:23 +0000

JamesJ and batterup- I’m one person. The charge of anti-Semitism is delivered by a little legion of anonymous people. I have given my real name here and in other fora when I thought it important to stand behind what I said. Maybe if someone could deliver a working definition of what anti-Semitism actually is I could address it and have done with it. But it’s this vague general thing, where any criticism of Jewish chauvinism is automatically bigotry. I’ve answered a dozen times or more the same vague generalized snotty reaction. I’m tired of saying it. You would like me to be an anti-Semite, whatever that means to you, because then you can dismiss without answer any charges I make and any questions I raise. Questions that many other people are asking. – As far as “unseen hands” go, anyone who is pretending to themselves that all forces in this complex world are overt and visible is worse than a fool. – It doesn’t seem to matter that I insist there are many Jews I admire. I love Joseph Brodsky immensely as a man and as a poet. I practically worship George Steiner. But what you guys are, JamesJ and batterup, I hate that. What you are I hate. Because you hide your own flaws and selfish cowardice behind the suffering of innocent people. You increase the suffering in the world. Using their victimhood as a shield. A form of cowardice I find unspeakably disgusting. – So there. There’s something you can work with. I love Joseph Brodsky and I hate your cowardly ass. What does that make me? Do you have a name for what that is? Call me that name. And give thanks we aren’t having this discussion in person.

By: Batterup

Batterup — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 03:39:16 +0000

Jeremy, Clearly you haven’t seen MSG’s comments in previous threads. Here’s a sample (imploring us to see the “hidden” Jewish hand in Iraq): The unspoken fear and disgust grow rancid in the dark. Bring it into the light. Cleanse it with truth. Answer the questions. For more of this ilk, browse at: http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001647.html

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:22:52 +0000

JJ —what leads you to believe Msg is an anti-semite? Or is that just the most convenient smear handy? When did you stop hating the jews?