Randi has just explained why we went to war in Iraq.

[The Witch]

She's been saying she didn't know the reason for a long, long time, but today she said, "I have figured it out."

Let's see if I can recap it.

Basically, the story is, the Saudis planned the war.

From her Web site:

What’s in it for Saudi Arabia to keep Iraq either in chaos or under their thumb? It’s the oil, stupid. In 2002, SA was already freaked out over the thought of Iraq being able to produce oil to capacity because the Saudis have ruined their country and needed to suppress global production in order to spike prices for themselves. And now, Saudi Arabia is enjoying budget surpluses with no external debt.

And as we told you yesterday, Saudi Arabia has just pulled their ambassador out of the America, and is now threatening us with an oil crash and Iraq intervention if we stop fighting this war for them.

FLASHBACK: The majority of “foreign fighters” in Iraq were found to be Saudis.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) met with Syria and found them to be quite interested in helping with Iraq. Makes you wonder why Bush really won’t talk with them.

Please help fill out this story in comments... it's VERY convincing.

[Ian David]

1. I still blame The Body Thetans. n/t

[BadgerKid]

2. Corrected link

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/

Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up on the story.

[n2doc]

3. The Saudi's biggest oilfield is in decline

and has been for a while. At least, that has been the speculation. It would not surprise me a bit if they wanted to keep prices high to maximize the last profits they get. And on top of that all of the oil company and oil field services companies have been like cows in clover these last 3 years...

[flyarm]

53. and who knew and was studying the largest oil field of saudi...

Valerie Plame!

[tsuki]

4. AH, DUH! n/t

[CJCRANE]

5. I pretty much agree with that analysis

except I see it more as a joint venture with the BFEE/Bushco/Neocons/Crazies (or whatever you want to call the RW American faction).

Both SA and Bushco gained enormously from 9/11 and "Shock and Awe".

[waiting for hope]

6. It has always been about

oil - Halliburton/KB&R are just lagniappe.

[Clark2008]

50. When I saw that word - lagniappe - I just KNEW you had to

be Cajun.

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

54. Lived there for almost

14 years - my son was born in New Orleans as well as my husband. We were there over Easter this year and the stories about the no bid contractors were just plain disgusting. Waxman has already said that his committee will be investigating that and I can't wait to see what the fall out will be. The Gulf Coast is still in dire need and it's positively shameful what has happened down there.

BTW: I still have "Where you at" and "Making groceries" in my vernacular.....Once there for a time, it will always be with you. New Orleans (and Louisiana) will always have a special place in my heart.:toast:

[Nickster]

7. This is basically what I wrote in one of my latest papers in school.

The Saudis made out like bandits when Iraq's oil production went off line and I believe that the House of Saud would be more than happy to take Iran off line as well. Disruptions in either country's oil will allow SA to consolidate market share, then they can influence the quotas of either country when the war comes to an end that much easier. The Saudis couldn't stand Saddam because he was the swing guy, no one could control his oil output, he could hold back or he could produce up to and over his quota.

[nealmhughes]

11. I also figured it out about a year ago, myself:

Saddam threatened to become a New Arab Napoleon, spreading secular ideas of government, threatening the monarchies at their core: a non-religious government, and a nationalized oil industry, with the profits spread out through the Arab world.

The worst thing Saddam could have done is to turn the taps on full blast, letting the magical mystical "market price" plumet with him using the old "bulk discount" formula of price reduction.

The Arabs of the Peninsula are well aware that their windfall from the 20s to now are going to be only a Century of profits. That is why Iran is dangerous, as is Hugo.

A fragmented Iraq is no threat to anyone but fellow Iraqis. US/UK/SA bases stabilize the Gulf for shipping and for the oil production zones. NOT BAGHDAD! Baghdad doesn't count. Why would they care about the Kurds if it weren't for their oil? They aren't Arabs. Most aren't that religious, anyhow.

There is a reason Dubai is building itself up to be the New Hong Kong, and it isn't because they like modern architecture. When the oil runs out, unless it has been wisely invested, the people go back to being herdsmen with a few oases for light agriculture. I don't think they will like that. The genie of air conditioning, Chinese restaurants, and electricity has been let loose, along with eradication of famine, death in childbirth, etc.

[happyslug]

38. I disagree, the main INCREASE In production over the last Four Year has been Russian

Thus if anyone benefited from Iraq being closed in has been President Putin.

As to Saudi Arabia in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 they promised to increased production AND DID NOT. Al types of excuses where given, the biggest one bing that there was a lack of refinery capacity to take the Saudi Crude (Which to a degree was true, for the Saudis were shipping out very heavy crude that few refineries can handle, but even this increase was NOT that much).

Thus the Saudi's do NOT need to have Iraqi or Iran's production shut in to increase price, the price is high enough as it is.

The real question is how long can Russia keep up its oil production? The peak year was 1987 (and one of the reason the old Soviet Union Collapsed was the loss of revenue do to a drop in oil production). Production continued to fall in the 1990s, do both to a continuing oil glut (Remember $1 a gallon under Clinton?) and a lack of investment. This all reversed since 2000 when do to the increase in the price of oil the Russians put more money back into their oil fields to expand production. Russian production is still way less than it was in 1987, but it is way more than in the 1990s.

The real question is how long can the Russian keep up this level of Production? While records from the Former Soviet Union is better than OPEC members, the records are NOT that complete. Most analysts believe that Russian has hit its second peck and will start production will start to fall, along with all the other major fields that have fallen in production since 1999 when the North Sea and than the North Slope went into terminal decline.

No the US invasion of Iraq was NOT to keep the price up or down but to make sure it went to US Corporate Interests (Notice I did not say US interests, but US Corporate interests and VERY big Difference). This is the Neo-Cons agenda, during the time period when oil is in short supply, the US Government should control it, and thus the US Corporate interests can used their power of lobbying to make sure they get the biggest benefit from Mid-East oil.

Thus the invasion of Iraq was NOT an attempt to raise prices, but to control who will get the high prices oil is expected to fetch in the next 100 years.

[Cleita]

8. I have hinted at this long before Randi but couldn't really post

my thoughts entirely because of the MIHOP connection. However, here goes what I think. I don't know how long this will stay up.

The 9-11 terrorists were a majority of Saudis. I think there was one Egyptian. The bin Laden family was flown out of the USA the next day. George HW and another Saudi sat in the Ritz Carlton watching the attacks.

The day I started putting two and two together was the day Bush and Prince Bandar were holding hands in Crawford and later when Bush dropped everything while on vacation to meet with Prince Bandar in Washington, a meeting we were not privy to what it was about. He didn't do the same when Katrina hit, but continued on his photo ops while people on the gulf were dying. Other evidence is that they let bin Laden get away in Tora Bora. I'm certain that if he is still alive, he is living protected somewhere in Saudi Arabia.

Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 pointed to the Saudi connection. So it seems more and more everyday that there was planning and collusion between the Saudis and our oil elite the Bushes and the PNAC cabal. It was essential for them to take out Saddam because he wasn't playing nice with the oil cartel and was threatening to trade in Euros. But first they needed their Pearl Harbor incident. I'm sure the Saudi royal family are at the bottom of 9-11 and that the Bush administration knew something was going to happen but were ordered to sit back and watch it happen.

A Sunni Iraq is of great benefit to Saudi Arabia. They would make good vassals to their Saudi overlords. This is why the Iraqi invasion has morphed into a civil war with the Saudis demanding that we back the Sunnis. I'm sure that ethnic cleansing of the Shia is in the plans.

I believe our government was co opted in the rigged elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. They tried in 2006 but couldn't because by this time the majority of Americans were on to them and fed up with Bush. This is why Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia and commanded to fix things. I'm sure the orders to replace Rumsfeld came from Riyadh as well.

Now if my and Randi's speculations are close to the truth, it means the Bush cabal have committed treason of the highest order by handing our country over to another foreign country to rule as they willed. I think Congress should investigate and declare war on Saudi Arabia if this is true. Let's face it we already have military in the ME and I think Americans would be a hundred percent behind this war if the truth is that the Saudis installed their puppet Bush in our White House and the UAE in our ports. Oh yes and charge the Bush administration with treason and arrest them.

[blm]

10. Pretty much where I am at - and, of course, all the arrows still point to the longtime

alliance of the House of Saud and House of Bush and their maneuverings within and beyond BCCI.

[Nia Zuri]

13. Question...If they did 9/11, why didn't they do a better job of making it look

like Iraq was behind it? A lot of what you say makes sense, but with the connection between Iraq and 9/11 so tenuous, sees like they (Saudis) would have planted more evidence to make it look like Saddam Hussein was the mastermind if there intention was to position 9/11 as a pretext to was against Iraq. instead, they sent a bunch of Saudi's to do the deed.

[The Witch]

18. i've often wondered that as well.

The one thing I can think of is that they were billing it to the Saudi people by saying this is a war against the U.S. AND Iraq. That is, they used it as an occasion to make a "first strike" and made the impression on the Saudis, not on the Americans.

It'd be interesting to see how the war is being covered on the Saudi (excuse for a) media.

[Cleita]

20. Because Kings often think that their subjects are dumb and

can be told anything and it will be believed. If they are a totalitarian monarchy like the Saudis their terrified subjects won't object even though they know it's a crock of manure. The Saudis have become used to this kind of unquestioning acceptance and probably think Americans are equally as compliant. "If they say it, then it must be true."

Read "Mein Kampf" someday about what Hitler says about spreading propaganda. They believe you can tell a big lie and if you repeat it enough times it will start sounding true and people will come to accept it as the truth. This is exactly what they've done, but like all lies and the lying liars who tell them, there comes a time that it backfires on them and I don't think the majority of Americans are buying it anymore.

[Blue Belle]

52. Bush thinks the American people are dumb all the time...

how many occasions has he been caught in a bold face lie and denied he ever said anything? Do "Stay the course" and "Iraq and 9/11" ring any bells? :eyes:

[CJCRANE]

22. a) They didn't need to.

All they needed was an attack carried out by "arabs", didn't matter where they were from.

b) It was a de facto "false flag" attack because although carried out by Saudis, Bushco tried to blame it on Iraq from day one. After a little sideshow in Afghanistan (after pressure from Richard Clarke, Colin Powell and Tony Blair) they did manage to then shift the blame to Iraq and convince most of the American public that Saddam was connected to 9/11 (the majority of US troops in Iraq still believe this according the last poll I saw).

c) Bushco have no leverage in Iraq so how could they use Iraqis? But they have leverage with al-Qaeda/Saudi Arabia through their contacts with the bin Ladens, Saudi Royals, the Pakistani ISI and the Mujahideen (don't forget the CIA helped fund them). So it would be pretty easy to use their old networks, double-agents and financiers to set up (or at least support) an attack.

[LSK]

27. you are confusing your Sunni and Shia

The Sunnis had the power under Saddam. Now the Shia's look to control the country and they are the ones with the death squad militias.

In addition, a war on Saudi Arabia totally opens the door for Iran to control the whole ME.

The best strategy is to dump our dependence on oil and just leave the whole region.

No more war for oil. Let China have that problem.

[Cleita]

29. I am? I thought the Sunnis were the fundamentalists who got

along with the Wahabis, which the Saudis are. Wasn't Saddam a Shia, which were more secular? Damn I apologize if I got it backwards. I do get senior moments and I this apparently is one of them.

[LSK]

35. im pretty sure about the current situation

The Shias are now the ones with control of most of the Iraqi Govt and they are the ones with death militia squads going after the Sunnis who are the minority who had control under Saddam. Meanwhile Al Queda has been helping with the Sunni insurgency who are doing attacks on the Shia's who now control the Govt.

Saudis = Sunni

Iran = Shia

Read the 1st part of the ISG Report, it paints a clear picture of this mess.

[tnlefty]

36. IIRC, Saddam is a Sunni, just not of the fundamentalist, Wahabi

variety.

[happyslug]

40. First the Shiite/Sunni split is also a tribal split.

One of the problem when a western looks at the mideast is that the West has NOT been tribal since the days of the Roman Empire. During the "Darks Ages" Community more than one's Tribe was how people identify oneself (and this was expressed in terms of religion, thus the big hold of Christianity during both the Dark ages and the subsequent Middle Ages). While the concept of Nation-State seems to start before the Reformation and Renaissance, it continued to developed during the Enlightenment and along with Nationalism became the dominate way people saw themselves starting about the time of the French Revolution. Thus westerns tend to be identify themselves as being a member of whatever nation they are in more than anything else (In many ways Communism was a rejection of this development of the Nation-State going back to the Community concepts of the Middle; Ages, but again a rejection of Tribalism).

On the other hand Tribalism is alive and while in the Middle East. In the 1980s the Shiite Muslims were about to win the Lebanese Civil War, so the Christan Maronite turned to the Alawite of Syria to bale them out (These two Tribes had been allied for Centuries and shared trade routes with each other). Recently these two had had a falling out, with the Syrians backing Hezbollah (Who get support from some Christian Tribes).

In Iraq and Arabia tribal identity is the most important thing for a person, more so than Religion. Religion is often tied in with one tribe or another and often identify long times allies (Shiites tend to ally with Shiites, Sunnis with Sunnis, Christians with Christians), but alliances across religion also exist. Tribal lines often cross national lines (For example the Alawites of Syria and their Alliance with the Christians of Lebanon), sometime national line split Tribes. In the case of the latter the tribe is really not loyal to either country his tribe is in, the tribe is loyal to itself and its members. Tribes can also co-exist in the same area mostly for trade but also where tribal groups overlap and it is easier to live together than to fight all the time.

Once you understand how the tribes work, then what is happening in Iraq and Arabia begins to make sense. The US invaded Iraq to control Iraqi oil, the Sunnis, who under Saddam, ruled Iraq revolted and called in support from their fellow tribal members both in Iraq and Arabia. These "Foreign" Fighters brought in with them some of their religious friends in addition to fellow tribe members (the Religious fanatics are bin Laden contribution to this mess). While the religious fanatics are a factor the big factor are these tribal connection. Not only are fighters coming over from tribal members living in Arabia, those tribal members are using their connections in Arabia to raise money and arms for they fellow tribal members in Iraq. It is these tribal leaders who, I believe, have been supplying the arms to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. These tribal leaders (both in tribes in both arabia and Iraq but also tribes allied with other tribes in Iraq) have been sending in the arms and dragging the House of Saud into Iraq.

Now that the some tribal members are in Iraq, the House of Saud must "support" them to a degree. Like Saddam, the House of Saud depend to a very large degree on the support of the tribal chiefs of the Mid-east. If the House of Saud should lose support from these Chiefs, the rule of the House of Saud is finished. The same went for Saddam so he took care of the Tribal leaders (Who are elected by the male members of the tribe whenever one dies, thus while Saddam could kill off the tribal Chief he could NOT select his successor, the same goes for the House of Saud).

Religion comes into play in that most Tribe identify themselves not only by blood ties (Cousin marrying is the norm in the Middle East thus you have VERY close families) but also religion. The Shiites identify tribe with historical Strong ties with Iran. Christian Tribes are tied in with various trade routes in the area. Sunni tied in with Baghdad and the tribes tied in with ruling from Baghdad. In many ways the Shiite- Sunni split almost follows the Roman-Persian split of the about 100 BC to 600 BC. which in turn reflected how far each army could go say from they base of support (The Mediterranean for the Romans, the Persian highlands for the Persians).

Thus the split along religious lines is NOT the cause of this conflict, it is only one of the many ways the tribes identify themselves and who they are allied with. The Saudis are tied in with the Wahabi, but most of Arabia is not (Being Sunni instead, Wahabi is just a radical offshoot of Suunism). The Shiites control Persia, southeast Iraq as while as BOTH SIDES of the Persian Gulf (The States of the Persian Gulf are lead by Sunnis, but the people are Shiites, thus the leadership tend to be a very strict dictatorships, a tiny Sunni elite ruling over a large and hostile Shiite majority.

In many ways the Shiite Success in Iraq is more feared then any US withdraw, for the Shiites show the other Shiites of the Gulf that you to can RULE. All of these groups have string ties with Iran (Shown by all of them being Shiites).

One last Comment, when it comes to Secular rule, the Shiites have preferred it much more than the Sunnis have. Sunnism has in its world view that the Ruler is the agent of God and thus he must Rule in God's name and matter. The Shiites have always been the minority in Islam and as such often under hostile rule by Sunnis. Thus the Shiite developed a much stronger concept of Separation of Church and State than did the Sunnis, for the Shiites were more often than not forced to live under the rule of a Sunni Ruler. Modern Iran is an exception to this rule, but even in Iran an attempt was made to keep religion and government Separate while making the Government subservient to the religious establishment. Thus you have an elected Parliament and President, but who may run is determined by the religious authorities. Even some Shiite are uncomfortable with the setup, but some sort of religious control was going to be imposed after the Shah, but popular will was also to be given a voice. The present Iranian Constitution is a compromise between there two concept, one we in the West can NOT fully agree with, but one that is understandable given the previous rule of the Shah.

More on Sunni Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni

More on Wahabi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi

More on Shiite Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam

Christianity in Lebanon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Lebanon

Maronite Christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronite

For more on the Alawites:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/191
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite

[Cleita]

42. Hey there happyslug.

:hi:

Thanks for the explanation and the references. It helps me to understand this a lot. I started printing out articles on Saudi Arabia a year or so ago when I was becoming suspicious about the Bush connection to them and to 9/11. I'm going to print out your references and add them to what I have.

Thanks.

[tiptoe]

9. Well, then, did the Saudis also plan 9/11 (without OBL's original involvement/knowledge)?

[Cleita]

12. I'm sure bin Laden is part of it. Remeber the Saudi sheik who

visited him in Afghanistan before the war? They made a tape of them at dinner discussing how well the WTC attack on 9-11 went. They let him go in Tora Bora and we don't know where he is. I'll bet he's in Saudi Arabia if he's still alive being protected by the royal Sauds, just like Idi Amin was. That's my speculation.

[tiptoe]

21. OBL originally denied involvement (twice!). The tape distributed by the Pentagon

displayed the "Pentagon's bin Laden" (facial features visibly and dimensionally differing from Al Jazeera's Bin Laden).

See: http://colorado911visibility.org/JonesPP4web/img55.html


See: http://colorado911visibility.org/JonesPP4web/img57.html (Two statements of original denial by Bin Laden)


Osama Bin Laden may have become "part of it" after the fact, if his original denials are assumed truthful. The fact that the Pentagon's taped Bin Laden clearly differs from the "real" Bin Laden suggests interests other than the "real OBL" may have been controlling events, to exploit-by-involving/framing the real OBL after the fact of 9/11. OBL eventually played along (...and eventually, curiously, the hunt for OBL by U.S. forces was abandoned...when they had him seemingly cornered!). Meanwhile, on 9/11 Dubya was reading My Pet Goat, while Cheney was tucked in a bunker attending to an object descending towards the Pentagon..."commanding" in a curious way, however. The next day *Co shut down airflights, EXCEPT for scurrying the remaining bin Laden family members out of the USA!

See: http://colorado911visibility.org/JonesPP4web/img78.html


Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect

[judaspriestess]

16. the Saudis as well as this admin knew of the impending

attacks. The planning was letting it go through. I clearly recall hearing on the news that there was a 'major' attack being planned against the US by bin laden just about a week before 9/11 happened. I woke the morning of 9/11 and began watching live coverage. I did not know exactly what was going on yet but as soon as they said it was a plane that crashed into the WTC, I knew it was bin laden. It was on the friggin news for everyone to hear.

Of course the SA and the bushies are in this together.

[The Witch]

19. On the American news?

wow. :wow:

[CJCRANE]

23. Also remember that Judith Miller of the NYT

admitted that she nearly published an article warning of an attack before 9/11 but changed her mind. I'm sure it was common knowledge in certain circles in the summer of 2001.

[Cleita]

44. Or did she get her mind changed for her?n/t

[judaspriestess]

41. yes!! on the American news

the rumor was coming from intel and cia reports. It was not a secret. I think it was CBS news. I used to watch Dan Rather alot back then but it was not the main story of the evening.

[CJCRANE]

32. My take

is that it doesn't matter. It seems obvious that some of the leadership and financiers of al-Qaeda are double-agents who steer the organistation in the direction required when necessary.

[The Witch]

51. OT, but my non-political handle is "tiptoe39" :D

so hello from one tiptoe to another

[JacksonWest]

14. I don't think the Saudis have ruined their county. And Saudi has

provided no help in the war to the United States and it's allies. I can remember Randi talking about this when the war started. The Saud's feared that oil production in the country would begin to compete with their own at the beginning of the war. That has not been the case. Now, it appears that this chaos in Iraq is opening up the floodgates for a Sunni(Saudi Arabia) Shiite(Iran) battle royal. Which is also good for the Saud's. Any activity that gives the royals breathing room. Remember-the royal family is hated by the majority of the people. They fear revolution every minute of every day.

[The Witch]

17. Interesting take

Wasn't the war to disrupt that oil production, thought? That's what she suggested.

Randi also suggested that this was also a way to divert the Saudi majority from considering revolution. Give them an external enemy. Kinda like us, eh?

[CJCRANE]

25. In fact OBL even said

in his November '04 videotape that the Bush family learned a lot of tactics from the Saudi Royals.

[JacksonWest]

39. No, not like us.

Saudi Arabia is not at all similar to our situation. I didn't listen to Randi today, but we didn't start this war to halt oil production. There was very little oil production in Iraq prior to the invasion. However, it has the largest reserve in the world. So, the future of middle-east oil is in Iraq. We've found another large reserve in the Gulf of Mexico recently, which could offset the whole mid-east in five years.

Oil is oil. It really doesn't matter how much we find. It's always going to be a commodity, and the Saud's are not going to go poor if the price drops.

In terms of diverting the majority...it's not a diversion in Iraq. It's the real thing. The people that are of the inclination to revolt are invested in the Iraqi struggle. Remember, Osama hates the ruling class of Saudi as much as he hates us-maybe more. Afterall, we're mere infidels. They-the royals- are borderline apostates. Shiites are apostates, and that's the former ruling class in Iraq(and the majority). Iran is also composed mostly of Shiites. As it turns out, shiites are the least secular and most progressive people in the region. They make up about ten percent of the muslim world, and are best represented by Iran, Iraq, and palestine(although palestine's a mixed bag).

oddly enough, we-our government- always seems to have a problem with countries in the middle east that have the least secular governments.

[MzNov]

15. That's so funny. That's what I said yesterday.

hey, I think I finally get it :-) Not in so much detail of course, but now we can understand why DumbNuts is stalling. He is waiting for his orders. Randi is usually RIGHT ON too.

[LSK]

24. I dont think one reason overrides any other

Im sure the defense contactors sure liked the idea also.

[CJCRANE]

26. Yep, it's an unholy alliance.

Each group needed bought into the project to get a piece of the pie or some other side benefit.

[tridim]

28. Nearly all the dots are connected now

and people are starting to see the big picture.

Preach it Randi! And keep talking to your friends in Congress.

[Cleita]

31. Yep, and if this does prove out to be high treason, I hope

the new Congress gets on it ASAP. Also, is there a chance that the players in the PNAC and the Bush administration might try to sneak out of the country, in exile so to speak? Would Saudi Arabia give them asylum? Oh man the possibilities keep popping up in my mind.

[Gregorian]

33. True. Now we see the whole puzzle.

I think the important part here is to realize the connection between the oil companies. And how that connection transcends borders and governments. Bush/Saudi.


And while I'm sitting here, I see the connection between Saudi oil interests and Saudi 9/11 hijackers. I think there's a connection. After all, it wasn't Swiss who flew those planes into the buildings.

Talk about the ultimate conflict of interest. Cheney as VP, and his interest in Halliburton.

[rodeodance]

30. NYT Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia and OPEC want to cut oil production to

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

Bush's friends in Saudi Arabia and OPEC want to cut oil production to keep prices above $60 a barrel
by John in DC - 12/14/2006 01:23:00 PM

Remember when oil was hovering for the longest time around $20 a barrel. Why then does OPEC, and specifically Saudi Arabia, have the need to keep those prices above $60 a barrel?

I seem to remember that Saudi Arabia wasn't very concerned when oil prices skyrocketed even higher and Americans were paying $3 and even up to almost $4 a gallon for gas. Saudi Arabia didn't do a hell of a lot then to "stablize" gas and oil prices. But now that their windfall is only going to 3x normal prices, Bush's buddies the Saudis (you remember them, the folks who made up the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, the folks who funded the 9/11 hijackers, the folks who now are talking about funding the Al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq - that would be the Saudis) now feel compelled to keep those oil prices "stable."

When will America wake up and realize that Saudi Arabia is not our friend. They're always looking for an opportunity to screw us, when we're the ones propping up their rather hideous regime. Saudi Arabia wants to talk about what will happen if America pulls out of Iraq. Well I want to talk about what will happen if America pulls out of Saudi Arabia. Starting with the (literal) beheading of the entire Saudi royal family by those same Al Qaeda insurgents Saudi Arabia is so keen on financing in Iraq.

Not so funny anymore, this little "what if" game, is it? More from the NYT.........

[sinkingfeeling]

34. That's been Greg Palast's been saying. Read "Armed Madhouse".

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. And with a Bush in office, their was plan was fail safe.

I wonder if they financed the stolen election as well?

[BuyingThyme]

43. That's just one piece of the puzzle.

Lots of evil people made agreements to cash in.

[bridgit]

45. k&r'd, i heard her make that very plausible case today...

[alfredo]

46. That makes a lot os sense. At least it is based on a

reality.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[lildreamer316]

48. Simple: WHY the war, 9/11; ports; EVERYTHING?

One answer;

SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY.

Period; end of sentence; finis.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. Add the BFEE. Same difference. nt

[indepat]

55. With friends like this, who needs,,,?

[oblivious]

56. Wow. This is serious tin-foil-hat stuff. And it appears to be utter nonsense.

The two links Randi Rhodes uses to support her conspiracy theory are two articles by Mordechai Abir of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Scroll down to 12.14.2006:
http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/todaysshows

It takes you to two articles:

2002: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the War on Terrorism
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-11.htm

2006: Global Oil Supply Security and Al-Qaeda's Abortive Attack on Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-19.htm

The articles do not state or imply that the Saudis planned the war. If anything, they imply the opposite:
from the 2002 article:

The UN Security Council's unanimous resolution on Iraq received the blessing of all the Arab countries and probably produced a sigh of relief in Riyadh, as the threat of imminent war was, at least temporarily, postponed. Yet, it seems that the potential political fallout of a U.S. attack on Iraq is not perceived by the Saudi rulers to be as threatening to their regime as are the economic ramifications of the Iraqi regime's collapse. As early as 1998, when oil prices were about $12 a barrel, Crown Prince Abdallah had issued a strong warning about the state of the Saudi economy. War with Iraq is likely to cause oil prices to temporarily spike sharply. However, many analysts believe that if America were to establish a new regime in Baghdad, the recuperation of Iraq's oil industry could prove a major threat to the oil-dependent Saudi economy as well as to the already sharply reduced standard of living of the Saudi population.