I'm always a fan of "let's think about who's leaking this story analysis of
news coverage," and David Frum* has one which I don't necessarily beleive,
but is nevertheless thought-provoking:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary041904.asp
APR. 19, 2004: CONSPIRACY THEORY
After 24 hours, it’s agreed that the biggest news to emerge from Bob
Woodward’s book is the allegation that the Saudis promised to manipulate
the price of oil to help President Bush’s re-election. John Kerry had this
to say yesterday in Florida:
“If what Bob Woodward reports is true — that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, then tied to a secret White House deal — that is outrageous and unacceptable.”
But is it true?
Ask yourself this: Who could have been Woodward’s source for this claim?
Only one person: the canny Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the
United States and a frequent purveyor of titillating items to selected
journalists.
Next question: If such a deal existed, what motive could Prince Bandar have
for revealing it? The revelation could only hurt Bush, the candidate Bandar
was allegedly trying to help.
Logical next thought: If, however, Bandar wanted to hurt Bush, then the revelation makes a great deal of sense.
But why would Bandar want to hurt Bush? Don’t a hundred conspiracy books
tell us that the Bush family are thralls of Saudi oil money? Perhaps the
Saudis don’t think so. Perhaps they see President Bush’s Middle East policy
as a threat to their dominance and even survival. What could after all be a
worse nightmare for Saudi Arabia than a Western-oriented, pluralistic Iraq
pumping all the oil it can sell?
In other words, if what Bob Woodward reports is true, then the Saudis are
meddling to defeat Bush, not elect him.
A response to this from Tapped (http://www.prospect.org/weblog/):
FRUM'S JUJITSU. One of the great mysteries of recent years is how the Bush administration's strongest backers managed also to be fierce critics of Saudi Arabia, a country whose close ties to the President are the stuff of legend. Bob Woodward's allegation in Plan of Attack that the administration struck a deal with Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to keep oil prices high and then drop them just in time for the 2004 election threatened to take cognitive dissonance to new heights.
There are a number of ways in which this story reflects very poorly on the president, but the clear implication that the Saudi government wants to see Bush re-elected should certainly cause a neoconservative or two to re-think his attitude toward the administration. David Frum, author of the fiercely anti-Saudi An End to Evil, but also a former member of the administration, is having none of it:
"Ask yourself this: Who could have been Woodward's source for this claim? Only one person: the canny Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and a frequent purveyor of titillating items to selected journalists.
"Next question: If such a deal existed, what motive could Prince Bandar have for revealing it? The revelation could only hurt Bush, the candidate Bandar was allegedly trying to help.
"Logical next thought: If, however, Bandar wanted to hurt Bush, then the revelation makes a great deal of sense.
"But why would Bandar want to hurt Bush? Don't a hundred conspiracy books tell us that the Bush family are thralls of Saudi oil money? Perhaps the Saudis don't think so. Perhaps they see President Bush's Middle East policy as a threat to their dominance and even survival. What could after all be a worse nightmare for Saudi Arabia than a Western-oriented, pluralistic Iraq pumping all the oil it can sell?
"In other words, if what Bob Woodward reports is true, then the Saudis are meddling to defeat Bush, not elect him."
Cheney's razor -- a philosophical rule that the most complex explanation of an unknown phenomenon is probably correct -- rears its ugly head once again! This could be right, but it's a mighty big stretch. Given the decades-long closeness between the Bush family and the House of Saud and the President's very kind treatment of Saudi Arabia throughout his first term in office -- it makes a lot more sense to assume that things here are exactly as they appear: Bandar was trying to help Bush because Bandar likes Bush.
One also has to question the premise that the second Gulf War has created some kind of nightmare for the Saudi government. Saddam Hussein posed no direct threat to the United States, but he was a threat to Saudi Arabia and there's no reason whatsoever to think that, as Frum implies, Iraq is going to bust-up the OPEC cartel. Certainly the new geopolitical configuration in the Middle East creates an opportunity for America to put some distance between ourselves and the Saudis, but that's only going to be meaningful if the opportunity is seized. The president, moreover, has never shown an interest in seizing it. Last but by no means least, we now have evidence the Saudi government is directly working to ensure his re-election. Clever arguments don't change any of that.
--Matthew Yglesias
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Tom Beck
my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/
"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
