so woodard has made these claims that saudi's bandar gave the commitment to get oil prices low for the us election...

i was watching larry king interview woodward yesterday and they had a call in section, and prince bandar called in - and then there was an odd exchange between them where bandar sed (kinda smugly):
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/19/lkl.00.html
BIN SULTAN: Larry, number one, Bob Woodward is a first class journalist and reporter. And ...
BIN SULTAN: And number two, I will never contradict Bob Woodward.
BIN SULTAN: And number three is, what he said is accurate. However, there was one sentence that was left out.
BIN SULTAN: Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan, and then the rest is accurate.

then woodward jumped in quickly and started ranting :
" I've heard all of them. This goes in the hall of fame. This does...
I mean, that goes in the hall of fame of dodges and fishy explanations. I think it should get an Academy Award."

i dont know woodward from a bar of soap but he seems quite measured, and the whole 'academy award' rant seemed over-the-top, and kinda pre-planned. the obvious irony being that it seems it mite be woodward who deserves the academy award... the whole conversation seemed orchestrated somehow

after the call, king said
"KING: Just for the record, the prince called in. We did not call him, the Prince Bandar. Bandar called in to speak to you."
does that happen very often? king actually said earlier in the show that they were trying to patch bandar thru... do the important callers call a different number? how could he get thru, and how to verify identity? maybe its nothing.

my point however is that the apparent headline argument was a red herring. i dont even have a guess whats going on yet. one interesting level of specificity is that the conversation seemed to be directed at "oil prices low during the period for -- before the election, because of its impact on the economy." which isnt really internally consistent. with an election only 6 months away, theres no way a short term supply increase will have any impact on the economy - even if the supply increase started today (im not sure when the next opec meeting is), and the obvious fact remains that the oil price has been consistently increasing to 10 year highs - if the saudi position was true, then they would have started helping their american friends a long time ago - (its not immediately apparent when bandars promise to bush was made).

but the reality is that as long as its only a pre-election move (even if was 12 months in advance), it wont really have much impact in the economy apart from a small windfall for consumers, cos if business expects the price to jack back up after the election, then they will still base their plans on todays oil prices, and the commensurate drag on the economy. oiltraders i guess will also have a field day.

from memory, the obvious question 'what about oil prices after the election?' didnt even get asked. nor did 'how will u respond if kerry gets elected?' altho i kinda sense that mite be the implicit threat - we mite see this one raise to the top in the near future - praps with non-denial denials and unsaid threats etc

ari1 ari1, wherefore ari1 thou, ari1?
and now i notice this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002858 which suggests that ari2 is behaving weirdly about the same issue.
i bet ari1 is addicted to watching ari2, and cringing over every error and missed opportunity and watching the amateur walking into landmines - torn between knowing he could do a much better job, and then having to kick himself as a reminder that this is exactly why he jumped ship when he did.


__________________________________________________
but we were *saving* the village
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com