Bush faces oil scandal ahead of polls


Monday, 19 April , 2004, 08:43

Washington: Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised George W Bush that his country would lower oil prices before the November 2 presidential election, according to the author of a new book on the War in Iraq.

A drop in the oil prices would strengthen the US economy ahead of the election in which Bush will face Democratic Senator John Kerry, journalist and author Bob Woodward told CBS television.

"Bandar wanted Bush to know that the Saudis hope to fine-tune oil prices to prime the economy in 2004. What was key, Bandar understood, were the economic conditions before a presidential election," according to an excerpt of Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" cited by CBS Sunday.

The Washington Post, where Woodward works as an assistant managing editor, began running five days of excerpts from the book Sunday.

The journalist is known for his work in the Watergate scandal that led to president Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974.

Earlier this month, after meeting with Bush, Bandar said Saudi Arabia "will not allow any shortage on the world oil market."

"Oil prices should be between 22 and 28 dollars (a barrel). My government's target is 25 dollars," he added. A barrel currently costs about 35 dollars.

And the scandal is?

Originally posted by timechange.com
Bush faces oil scandal ahead of polls


Monday, 19 April , 2004, 08:43

Washington: Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, promised George W Bush that his country would lower oil prices before the November 2 presidential election, according to the author of a new book on the War in Iraq.

A drop in the oil prices would strengthen the US economy ahead of the election in which Bush will face Democratic Senator John Kerry, journalist and author Bob Woodward told CBS television.

"Bandar wanted Bush to know that the Saudis hope to fine-tune oil prices to prime the economy in 2004. What was key, Bandar understood, were the economic conditions before a presidential election," according to an excerpt of Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" cited by CBS Sunday.

The Washington Post, where Woodward works as an assistant managing editor, began running five days of excerpts from the book Sunday.

The journalist is known for his work in the Watergate scandal that led to president Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974.

Earlier this month, after meeting with Bush, Bandar said Saudi Arabia "will not allow any shortage on the world oil market."

"Oil prices should be between 22 and 28 dollars (a barrel). My government's target is 25 dollars," he added. A barrel currently costs about 35 dollars.

thats no scandal - good on gw - that would be great benefit for us if he can pull it off.

go GW!!!

Here we go again :)

The scandal is that it's an artificial price hike for political reasons. Unless you don't drive and haven't noticed that gas prices have gone up 40 cents in 3 months.

A lot of things are for political reasons these days. Is it wrong of course, but it sure looks good during election time so the politicians do ths kind of thing. It's nothing new.

Do I like how gas costs me more of course not but by driving less due to higher gas costs the air is getting less polluted so I guess its a win for environmentalists.

I dislike Bush very much but there isn't enough here to suggest that. The Saudi Ambassador's public comments about trying to ensure SA does its part to prevent critical oil shortages are perfectly understandable - they have good relations with US and want to give a little reassurance. I doubt he would come out and say though that it has anything to do with the polls.Now if he said that privately, how exactly does this reporter know about it?

Originally posted by timechange.com
The scandal is that it's an artificial price hike for political reasons. Unless you don't drive and haven't noticed that gas prices have gone up 40 cents in 3 months.

actually we have artificially low prices due to our governments strong involvment in middle east politics. I can also assure you that there is a lot more stretch left in the price elasticity of demand curve on oil prices. if they charged - 40 per barrel - everyone would moan - but they would pay it and keep on going. its proven that gas is much more expensive in other parts of the world and they make it work.

we are lucky to have good influence over there.

additionally - the real price hike in gas right now is not a shortage in oil - its a shortage in refined gas. the liveral tree huggers in this country ( some of their ideas I actually like) and the concerned neighborhoods and localities that dont want refineries near them have not allowed our refinery capacity to be expanded and now we are at capacity. guess what - if this does not change soon - you arfe going to see some big time gas prices.

and its the rich then who will be driving. not the greenpeace guys.

in fact john kerry will be driving since his billionaire wife will be able to afford it.

I wonder how much they will raise the price AFTER the elections then.. to 40 the barrel? ;)

Originally posted by BitterSweet
I wonder how much they will raise the price AFTER the elections then.. to 40 the barrel? ;)

there is a price where it becomes politically feasible to tap the alaska range that are off limts now - and alternative fuels wil lbecome affordabele - like ethanol etc.

they will also pump more from us fields that are not as high quality and cost more to refine. (yes I know about this - my ex was a mineral rights owner in the largest field in mississpi and I handled the financial affairs on it for15 years) so I know all about different grades and contract yada yada yada.

then the demand for imported oil will drop to a point where they will drop the price since they need the money since their economy is driven on natural resource depletion and not necessarily othere things so they wont be able to bear the lack of revenue when the volume drops on the curve to below where it is neede to sustain their naitonal ecoonomy. are you guys following me?

Well, keeping the oil prices at low USD value, in the days that the USD is low in value, this means that the Opec is doing a great favour for Bush, selling oil at exceptionally low prices.

The USD is now at its lowest values copared to Euro and other currencies. Gold and silver prices are at world record high. When oil pices are still down, even if it is raised a bit, that is not justice. That means that the countries that sell oil are cutting from the money of their people to pay Bush in order for him to continue his war plans.

That is just un-fair and un-acceptable, oil must be sold at fair prices.

Cheers,

Ahmed

Originally posted by nozol
Well, keeping the oil prices at low USD value, in the days that the USD is low in value, this means that the Opec is doing a great favour for Bush, selling oil at exceptionally low prices.

The USD is now at its lowest values copared to Euro and other currencies. Gold and silver prices are at world record high. When oil pices are still down, even if it is raised a bit, that is not justice. That means that the countries that sell oil are cutting from the money of their people to pay Bush in order for him to continue his war plans.

That is just un-fair and un-acceptable, oil must be sold at fair prices.

Cheers,

Ahmed

maybe saudi arabia is doing this to ensure a fair return of payment of the defense forces they like us to keep there that have been necessary to keep the likes of sadam huseins iraq from invading and looting and raping and murdering their citizens like they did iran and kuwait and the kurds. I would say this is very upright of sa to actually repay a debt. :)

Why on earth would the Saudi's want to lower prices to keep him in power? So he can take over another middle east country? If anything the Saudi's will raise it right before the elections as they have no incentive I can think of for keeping him in power.

Originally posted by alvinks
Why on earth would the Saudi's want to lower prices to keep him in power? So he can take over another middle east country? If anything the Saudi's will raise it right before the elections as they have no incentive I can think of for keeping him in power.

we are the reason the king is still in power.

we have large bases there that put the saudi kingdom off limits to invasion by other middle eastern countries and we support the current administration.

we also give them military aid and provide the worlds most advanced military technology to them and aid.

enough reasons?

we are the reason the king is still in power.

I would have to strongly disagree with that. If anything we are forcing him to open up. Already they are starting to have local elections for small positions.

And then on top of it what did Bush do which has kept him in power that Gore would not have done? From what you say if a democrat was in power the Saudi rulers would not be in power any more.

Also, we did not give them weapons, we sold it to them which is why we like them so much. This would not have changed had Gore been in power.

I personally think they would have 'more' power if Kerry was to win.

Originally posted by alvinks
I would have to strongly disagree with that. If anything we are forcing him to open up. Already they are starting to have local elections for small positions.

And then on top of it what did Bush do which has kept him in power that Gore would not have done? From what you say if a democrat was in power the Saudi rulers would not be in power any more.

Also, we did not give them weapons, we sold it to them which is why we like them so much. This would not have changed had Gore been in power.

I personally think they would have 'more' power if Kerry was to win.

I said nothing about a specific president. I dont know where that c ame from - I said "we" - meaning the US. nota specific administration. all administrations have been in support of the saudi govt. so far.

My original point was that the Saudi elite has no vested interest in keeping or wanting Bush in power so why would they agree to what was said in the first post of this topic. I just jumped and assumed you meant Bush was somehow keeping them in power.

Your point that we help them stay in power does have validity, my argument was that I do not believe they would want to keep the current administration in power as it seems to do more harm then good for them.

Originally posted by alvinks
My original point was that the Saudi elite has no vested interest in keeping or wanting Bush in power so why would they agree to what was said in the first post of this topic. I just jumped and assumed you meant Bush was somehow keeping them in power.

Your point that we help them stay in power does have validity, my argument was that I do not believe they would want to keep the current administration in power as it seems to do more harm then good for them.

What harm, specifically, has Bush done to Saudi Arabia?

Who here has heard about Carlyle? Bush and oil scandals, no way!!!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=carlyle+bush+saudi+arabia

Just a few thoughts.

First, Sailor was trying to make the point that the US government as a whole supports the Saudi government. I can't speak for him, but I think our stance would be the same regardless if the president was republican or democrat. Something like that won't just change with a different president....at least not instantly.

Also in response to a point Sailor made....I am curious as to why we have not pushed the ethanol product into the mainstream more. Locally, the gas I buy has a 10% ethanol blend and it works just as well if not better that a regular blend. Best part is it is cheaper. We certainly have enough product to produce the ethanol at a much higher level than we are currently.

Furthermore, we need to take steps to modify our usage/production to not be so dependent on overseas supplies. Our relationship (economic) with those areas is good...now...but what if that were to change? What if the prices experienced elsewhere in the world were to come here?

The prices you see today in the US are chump change compared to what they could be.