It's hard to make yourself heard

When they're rolling around on top of the mountain of dollar bills, huh, Georgie?

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabian leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase oil production until their customers demand it, apparently rebuffing President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

During Bush's second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, Saudi officials stuck to their position that they are already meeting demand, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices topped $127 a barrel, a record high.

The Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, said there was no need to increase production now. "Supply and demand are in balance today," he told a news conference. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

I don't think you need a translator to help you understand what was just said, Georgie. What's Saudi for 'hell, no'?

Fat lot of good your kissing and hand-holding did.



Or maybe ... that request was for the benefit of the Merkin folks and you really are happy with the state of things?



It all makes sense now...

Update 5/17: Distributorcap of Distributorcap NY reminds me that the Saudis agreed to a small increase. But Bush tells us we still need to drill in Anwar and not to get our hopes up:

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday that the Saudis' modest increase in oil production "doesn't solve our problem," and that the United States must act itself to help bring down soaring gas prices.

"We've got to do more at home," the president said on the lush lawn of a resort overlooking the Red Sea in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt.

Speaking after a private meeting with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, he mentioned moves that have long been part of his agenda but stymied in Congress, such as developing alternate fuels, improving conservation and expanding domestic exploration.

Bush said he told Saudi King Abdullah during talks Friday that the kingdom should be concerned that high energy prices are hurting some of its biggest customers, including the United States.

He asked Abdullah for an injection of oil supply to help ease the pain. "High energy prices are going to cause countries like mine to accelerate our move to alternative energy," he said he told the king.

But Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi said Friday it had decided a week before Bush's visit to raise production by 300,000 barrels a day to 9.45 million barrels a day and didn't see any need to do more. Energy analysts called the boost a token -- it represents just 3 percent of the total -- and it was seen as a rebuff, if a gentle one, of Bush by Abdullah.

One way we are working right now to control our energy needs, Georgie, is to get a Democratic candidate into office while we get you and Dick Cheney OUT of office.

Americans get a reminder of President Bush’s failed energy policies every time they gas up their cars. The average gallon of regular gas cost only $1.44 when Bush took office on January 20, 2001, and diesel cost just $1.53 per gallon. Yet today, gasoline and diesel fuel prices are at all-time highs, with gas prices at $3.60 per gallon and diesel prices at $4.17 per gallon.

Update 5/18: Speaking of appeasers, Watertiger of Dependable Renegade found this appropriate cartoon:

Musharraf, Bhutto, and the United States

The remarkable falling out between Bhutto and Musharraf since he declared a state of emergency nearly two weeks ago on the surface dashes all US hopes for a stable democratic government in Pakistan amenable to Washington's dictates in the "war on terror".

Yet the seemingly calamitous developments - which have provoked widespread demonstrations against Musharraf's government - might in fact still fit into the US's grand scheme for the embattled country: to gain control of its nuclear weapons so they do not fall into the hands of Islamist fanatics.

Contacts close to the power circles in Pakistan told Asia Times Online that there is a feeling that the US is prepared to take "hurricane" measures to ensure the safety of the country's nuclear arsenal. The thinking goes that by changing horses and supporting Bhutto, the US could exploit the current unrest by dictating new terms to Pakistan in the "war on terror" and coerce it into allowing the US to safeguard its nuclear stockpile.

[snip]

Enter, therefore, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whom Musharraf is expected to meet "soon" in Riyadh for what the official Pakistani media describe as "important discussions".

Musharraf aims to convey to the West - and to the US in particular - through King Abdullah that the Americans would never be allowed to fill any vacuum in Pakistan. Rather, chaos will play directly into the hands of the very militants and extremists the West fears so much and who have ever-growing bases just hours from the capital in the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

I mean...why would Pakistan resist? We've done so well in every other country we've dealt with in that area....

What we've known all along, part two

Marjorie Cohn of the Huffington Post:

My cousin Larry Russell, a travel writer, spent three weeks (May 11 through May 31 of 2007) in Jordan as a guest of the Jordanian Tourist Board. He was invited to dinner at the home of Karim Kawar, Jordan's ex- ambassador to the United States (2002-06), in Amman. Dick Cheney and his daughter were Kawar's guests two nights before Larry arrived. Kawar confided to Larry that "Cheney's mission was to sound out the reaction to a forthcoming bombing of Iran's nuclear sites (no ground invasion planned) by the U.S. from Jordan's King Abdullah and President Mubarak of Egypt. They both rejected the idea."

When Larry pointed out that Jordan and Egypt receive regular economic and military equipment assistance from the United States so any resistance to this plan on their parts would probably be of a token nature at best, Kawar just smiled.

I doubt Cheney was asking permission as much as telling them what was going to happen. Is this what Cheney was being told to do when he was commanded to report in Saudi Arabia?

BFF no longer?

After all that tiptoeing through the tulips?

WASHINGTON, April 29 Bush administration officials wonder whether the U.S. president can continue his deep reliance on a key Saudi prince, it was reported Sunday.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia is close to President George W. Bush. But recent events show that Prince Bandar may no longer serve as a beacon of Saudi intent, the New York Times reported.

In February, Bandar's uncle, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, effectively killed plans by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a summit between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

Then, threes week ago, Bush was caught off guard, and infuriated, when King Abdullah condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an "an illegal foreign occupation," the Times reported. Since then, the administration has found Prince Bandar hard to reach since, the Times said. Bandar had been pursuing policy that was "music to the ears of the Bush administration, but was not what King Abdullah had in mind at all," said Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel. Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said none of the current issues threaten the relationship between Bush, Bandar and Abdullah.

"We may have differences on issues now and then," Johndroe said, "but we remain close allies."

It's not convenient

We'll just stand back here and watch you circle the drain, thank you. Guess Cheney's frantic visit to Saudi Arabia didn't patch things.

Via Eli at Multi Medium, Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post:

Now the White House ponders what Abdullah's sudden and sparsely explained cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good -- especially for Condoleezza Rice's most important Middle East initiatives -- is the clearest available answer.

Abdullah's bowing out of the April 17 event is, in fact, one more warning sign that the Bush administration's downward spiral at home is undermining its ability to achieve its policy objectives abroad. Friends as well as foes see the need, or the chance, to distance themselves from the politically besieged Bush.

Official versions discount that possibility, of course. Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem. " 'It is not convenient' was the way it was put," says one official.

But administration sources report that Bush and his senior advisers were not convinced by Bandar's vagueness -- especially since it followed Saudi decisions to seek common ground with Iran and the radicals of Hezbollah and Hamas instead of confronting them as part of Rice's proposed "realignment" of the Middle East into moderates and extremists.

Abdullah's reluctance to be seen socializing at the White House this spring reflects two related dynamics: a scampering back by the Saudis to their traditional caution in trying to balance regional forces, and their displeasure with negative U.S. reaction to their decision to return to co-opting or placating foes.

Abdullah gave a warm welcome to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Riyadh in early March, not long after the Saudis pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas into accepting a political accord that entrenches Hamas in an unwieldy coalition government with Abbas's Fatah movement.

"The Saudis surprised us by going that far," explained one White House official in a comment that reached -- and irritated -- Saudi officials. So don't count on Abdullah to put new force behind his long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative at the Arab summit scheduled this week in Riyadh.

So the romping in the flowers and the hand-holding means nothing?

King Abdullah

speaks to the Japanese newspaper reporters Michiro Okamoto and Yuki Hasegawa / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondents.
"The Israeli-Hizbollah conflict emphasized the spreading influence of Iran in the region. You warned once of a "Shiite Crescent" from Iran through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon. How do you see the Iranian threat?

There is no doubt that Iran is a regional player and I think we have to engage them on that level. But again, the cards that are being played or the areas of contention can be found in Palestine, can be found in Lebanon and can be found in Iraq, and this is why I believe by moving one process, it could easily lead to another.

I do believe that if the Palestinian process were to move forward, it would be easier to tackle the Lebanese and Syrian processes. Once we get the peace camp strengthened, then future issues with Iran in the region are less tense and may not be thought of as an issue of conflict but an issue of dialogue. This is why I keep going back to the Palestinian issue, saying that if we get one process moving, it deflates the emotions of the people in this region and allows people to think clearly.

Today, the Arab streets are more enamored with radicals and radical rhetoric than of the listening to moderates talking about peace and coexistence. I think the peace camp and the moderate camp in the Middle East are in a very weak position. If we don't make a major shift in policy in the Middle East, then people will only hear radical arguments, and I think that would be a cost to all of us, including Israel.

I think today Israel has to decide: does it want to continue to be fortress Israel or does it want Israel included in the neighborhood?"

Don't you think the Iraqis might resent this just a tiny bit?

In response to King Abdullah's statement, Rush Limbaugh:
"ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- will be to provide whatever we can do for the Iraqi people, but the same time we do want to concentrate ourselves on the core issues which we believe are the Palestinians and the Palestinian peace process, because that is a must today --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, give me a break.

ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- as well as the tremendous concern we have had over the last several days with what's happening in Lebanon. And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands.

LIMBAUGH: All right, well, let's just have them. Let's just have the civil wars and let the crumbs crumble and the cookie crumble where -- because I'm fed up with this."
[snip]

"Fine, just blow the place up. Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them, instead of trying to use -- I just -- sometimes natural force is going to happen. You're going to have to let it take place. You can spend all the time you like with diplomacy, and you can spend all the time you want massaging these things with diplomatic -- you're just -- you're just delaying the inevitable."