Saturday, May 17, 2008

On The Saudi Payroll?

The American Thinker asks: What do the Saudis want?

Slowly but surely it is beginning to dawn on a world mesmerized by the Democratic primary contest that an oil cartel has been picking our pocket with impunity by willfully failing to adjust its output to the additional needs of China and India. More specifically, Americans are beginning to wonder at the logic of continuing to keep Saudis safe. Hence, the US-Saudi oil axis faces a day of truth when president Bush will deliver diplomatically to his Saudi hosts the message NY senator Chuck Schumer delivered most undiplomatically:
We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?
Interesting that a Democrat would be asking that question. And asking it in relation to an American arms sale to the Saudis. We will have more on that question in a bit.

But first what do the Saudis want?
First, they want to see energy demands curtailed rather than supplies increased so that oil will continue to be able to meet that need.

Second, they want oil consumers to continue to promote investment in oil and to promise NOT to invest in or subsidize seriously the development of alternatives to oil.

Third, if alternative energy is to be developed, it should not substitute for oil, merely supplement it.

Fourth, they want "to smooth the recycling of billions of dollars in oil revenues from producers back into consuming countries." In other words, end the growing scrutiny of sovereign wealth funds.
Basically what they want is a guarantee that they can continue their leveraged buy out of the USA. I don't think that is a good idea.

Which fits in pretty well with keeping alcohol tariffs high and preventing the development of flex fuel vehicles, which I discuss at The Girls From Brazil Have A Question. They also have nice asses (and I don't mean donkeys) which you can see in the included video.

Which leads us to the final question which Instapundit asks: is Congress on the Saudi payroll? Rocky Mountain news has the details.
The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.

It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.
Don't forget that the Dems in the name of the enviro lobby have been blocking drilling in Alaska and drilling off our coasts. The funny thing is that the Cubans with the help of the Chinese don't see any problem with drilling off our coast, albeit just on their side of the economic zone demarcation line. If there is oil on their side of the line there is most probably oil on our side of the line.

So do the Saudis own the Democrats? It is as good a hypothesis as any. And what about Bush? I think he is a bad politician. He didn't stay bought. How about the Democrats? It looks like they are getting double crossed. Well crossings and double crossings are always the prelude to war. This one is going to be a real bitch.

Cross Posted at Classical Values


J Carlton said...

I don't think that it's so much of the Saudis buying the Democrats as the ideology of the Democrats driving a kind of nihilistic stupidity. The Democrats have over the last 40 years or so become the party of a radical Socialist utopian philosophy that exists in spite of facts and realities.
Like Al Gore most of the Democrats come from a heritage of power and privilege that is separated from the realities the rest of us live with. The reality is that the Dems were pushing for higher oil prices through raising taxes on gasoline for a long time before the recent rise in prices. They were doing this on environmental utopian grounds even though the effects of high oil prices would hurt the nominal Democratic constituencies the most. The current situation is exactly what they want especially if they get the double whammy of being able to exploit the situation without actually having to do anything to change it. As for any nasty surprises, well if you don't tell them about BFR's I won't.

RavingDave said...

If we tax ethanol from brazil,
(as the girls from brazil allege)
then the answer would seem obvious. Vocal American Farming constituencies have more influence over US policy than Brazilians.

That's just my guess though.


ron nord said...

While trying to find the names of the 15 Democrat Senators I wrote to Senator Allard for help, here is my letter to him.

Dear Senator Allard,

Could you please send me a list of the Democrat Senators who voted to extend the oil shale moratorium? Was my Senators Feinstein or Boxer involved in this? I have looked on the internet and can't find the break out of names. There seems to be a concerted plan or scheme to ruin the United States by the Democrats and it has been going on for a long time now. The only thing that I can figure out at this point is that the oil producing countries of Arabia are paying some in the Senate to vote the way they do. Also, just who is funding these 'greens' who are throwing the legal roadblocks, is Saudia Arabia putting up a few hundred million in order to make trillions, isn't it about time to start thinking out of the box. Has anyone drove the price of oil higher than the Democrats and 'greens,' are they in pay of our enemies, what else makes that much sense. I know that both former Presidents Carter and Clinton get millions in honorariums from the Arabs and then lead the band in their behalf, is it wise not to have laws precluding this type of "soft" treason. I don't trust my government any more to do the right thing, I look for the baseness in its actions and unfortunantly am not very surprized at what is found. Are the Democrats and 'greens' in the pay of our enemies through cutouts, PAC's and all the other ways to hide the money trail?

M. Simon said...


That was so good, I'm putting it on the front page. With minor editing as required.