Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Woodward just explain the 1970's oil embargo?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:46 PM
Original message
Did Woodward just explain the 1970's oil embargo?
When he talked about the close relationship between the Saudi prince and their agreement to manipulate oil prices right before the election in order to give the illusion of a healthy economy. If that is the case, then perhaps Poppy Bush pulled the same strings in the 70's oil embargo which was responsible for driving Carter out of office.

It appears that we have another manipulated election on our hands. Who really runs this country when the people can be economically manipulated like puppets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good observations
We also know that Poppy flew to London to meet with the Iranians to guarantee the hostages wouldn't be freed before the 1980 election, an October surprise. (I think that was the first time I remember hearing the phrase "October Surprise".)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. THat was the first October surprise.
They created that term, and I think that the oil embargo wasn't insurance enough of a Bush/Reagan victory. Notice I said Bush/Reagan. Then like now, Chenney is in charge like Poppy Bush was, and Bush Jr. is playing the Reagan role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. You thought there was any other possibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolutely.
I have had no doubt about that for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Anyone else feeling uneasy and think we're being manipulated?
Woodward said a lot of scary things tonight about Bush on 60 Minutes. Why would the most secretive administration in US history allow Woodward, the man who brought down another President, into their confidence and, better yet, walk away with a tape recorder full of damaging quotes from Mr. Bush? Does Bush want out but cannot bring himself to disappoint the Republican party? Is there some damaging information about 911 that Bush wants to keep hidden and has cut a deal? Are we being played? Or is it just hubris on Bush's part? I'm probably being very paranoid, but something just doesn't make sense to me, given the attitude of this Presidency toward every other type of inquiry or investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Why did Nixon make tapes
because their egos are so large they believe nothing can touch them.

To be honest, they may be right. No matter how damning Woodward is, especially showing a foreign power secret battle plans, the press may still not do their job, due to the corporate media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Rope-a-dope?
I think maybe Bush sees NOTHING wrong with the things he told Woodward. He probably thought he was being clever and wanted to show off. Is there anything in that book that Bush in his f*uped mind wouldn't think was actually flattering? He is so far out of it he probably is proud of the things he told Woodward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I think that Bush really thinks that he is infallible.
Or that they have the election rigged so hard that there is now way that they can ever lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I had the same reaction. There is something so convenient about Woodward
and I keep waiting for someone to dig into how he achieved that kind of access and those intimate details. It's just too...too....easy.

I haven't read his book yet, but something just doesn't pass the smell test. I'm as hungry for information like this as anyone. Are we all too hungry to question the questioner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I agree, I wondered the same thing.
How did this guy walk away with this info and is still breathing, something stinks. Plus, he has been a Bush enabler for a couple of years now on all the talking head shows. Why the change of tune? Is this what all the responsible war propagandists do when the war turns bad? Don't they know that all wars turn bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Call me skeptical but
I agree with you. There's something just too pat with all this. The fact that I don't trust Woodward even one little bit probably doesn't help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefff Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. The digging has been done
And it happened a long time ago. The book you folks want to peruse is Silent Coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. It was first printed in 1991, forced out of print, and then re-released in 1992. It is now out of print, but I found a copy through http://www.abebooks.com The 2nd edition paperback has a most interesting epilogue on how the Washington Post has engaged in a bit of a cover up about Mr Woodward.

According to the meticulous documentation in the book, Woodward has misled everyone about his past Naval career. In reality he is supposed to have been a Naval Intelligence operative. In 1969-70, Woodward had a special, secret Pentagon job. He served as the briefing officer between pentagon/military intelligence and the National Security Council at the White House. Specifically he was the go between for Haig and the Pentagon.

Suddenly, a couple of years later he had a major reporting beat at one of the nation's top newspapers. And guess what, he had a "secret source" inside the White House. Yep, Uh-huh. I'll let you connect most of the dots, but suffice to say, the pentagon has often had cause to remove civilian executives who step on too many toes.

I would say that anything Woodward writes is suspect (how did he get access to those Clinton bed chamber conversations back in '93?), but it shows what military intelligence's agenda is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurtyboy Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. This is an effort to save Bush, by Woodward, when things are getting
Pretty dicey.

IMHO, this interview (don't know about the book yet, but either way) gives Bush the latitude to burn three people--Cheney, Tenet, and Rice (maybe Powell...) while saying he was acting on the best advice of his cabinet.

Cheney said Tenet had a strong WMD case, Tenet called it a slam dunk, Rice didn't stop anything, and poor little George questioned it not once (in one conversation), but twice. "Joe Public," Woodward reports Bush as saying, won't believe it.

So Bush supposedly disbelieves the same tripe all reasonable Americans now disbelieve about WMDs--but, dammit, his best advice from all of those "PROS" around him is to go to war. Aw, what damned bad luck---I guess he couldn't help but go with the good advice of the adults he'd put in charge of foreign affairs. George ends up a victim.

Anyway, my point is this: If worse comes to worse (for Bush, I mean---I know we're all truly experiencing 'worse' already...) he can fire Cheney (or not run with him), Tenet, and Rice--starting with Tenet. This will set him up as a true leader who can finally admit a mistake (countering the big ding on him for the moment), while letting the public know that the future will be different. On top of that, he won't have to run with Big Time (cheney), but can instead pick a mate that will boost him in November.

Will things work that way? Even if this were the plan (And I admit to wild, unfounded speculation here), I have to respond, "HELL NO!"

I'm only saying that Bush can read the writing on the wall, and even his lame-ass advisors know they may be cooked. That's why they may try stupid stuff like this--pushing Bob Woodward to help them with damage control. If you can't tell, I don't fully trust BW anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. You're assuming Bush runs things- He doesn't
Bush is Cheney's puppet. That's why the Administration viewed this book as so damaging... because it presents the real chief of state in a very negative light.

Without Cheney and the rest of the handlers, Bush is nothing; an empty suit with a big hat and few dirty jokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurtyboy Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. No, I am not assuming that at all.
I think Cheney has an inordinate level of power--but even if he gets dumped, he can still exercise it...

Bush is not "nothing". He is the embodiment of the entire ultracon movement. If he goes out in this election, they suffer a huge setback to their plans. They have to make him survive the electorate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MinnFats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
23. "bush at war" was the set-up.
it was mildly pro-bush, and left the * administration confident that he would tell their version without making them look like assholes.
well, he just told the facts, and they look like assholes.
dangerous, demented assholes.
but they took him into their confidence because of the first book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. didn't Poppy pay a visit in 1999-2000, too?
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 11:03 PM by cosmicdot
they needed to help back up their dumbing down the economy, i.e., recession/hurt Gore, to set the stage for tax cuts, etc.

it just sounds right
but, can't find a story link


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robin Hood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I recall that as well.
But I can't find anything on line. Does anyone have info on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Trip by George H.W. Bush and James Baker To Saudi Arabia in 2000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. i don't think the timing is right
i recall the first oil shock being around 1973, and i certainly don't recall any oil shock during 1980.

what i do recall is that, from a political perspective, paul volker picked a disastrous time to put an end to the inflation. he drove up interest rates sky high just prior to the 1980 elections, paving the way for reagan.

not necessarily any devious intent, i think volker was just doing his job as he saw it. i don't think volker was a reagan fan at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Flashback
to the 2000 campaign.

there was an oild shortage and Clinton released national reserves to keep prices under control. Conservatives called it manipulating the voters in Gore's favor.........who was actually doing the manipulating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Isn't it quite the coinkydink?
Funny how oil shortages just seem to crop up during election years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Think again
Oil was a huge issue in 1979-80. All kinds of quotes in this link from the time.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/b16.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. There was an embargo by Arab states in 1973
after the Yom Kippur war, which drove the oil price up, and created shortages. In 1979 and 1980 the oil price went up again - largely due to OPEC wanting it higher, though the Iranian revolution and the start of the Iraq-Iran war probably had an effect too. It does seems to have been Saudi Arabia that decided to bring prices back down, from December 1980:
Dec (1980)
Collapse of OPEC's pricing structure. Saudis use $32 per barrel marker, others use $36 per barrel benchmark.
1981
Saudis flood market with inexpensive oil in 1981, forcing unprecedented price cuts by OPEC members. In October, all 13 OPEC members align on a compromise $32 per barrel benchmark. Later, benchmark price is maintained, but differentials are adjusted.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Oil Market Events
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
19. Last year a retired army Colonel told me
that the gas shortage in the 70s was a complete and total manipulation and said that it was for the express purposes of lining the pockets of a certain few rich people in this country.

He didn't have any love for Bush Jr., either.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that the man who was called the American Saudi Prince (Bush Sr.) would use his influence with the house of Saud to manipulate the election.

If Casey's trip to Paris to make an arms for hostages deal wouldn't do it, there was always the economy.

When the stakes are so high, of course people like Bush will try to incorporate enough redundancy in their Machiavellian schemes to create the outcome they want, in case one tactic doesn't play out as expected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
26. Remember the hostages being freed on Ronnie's inauguration day?
Edited on Mon Apr-19-04 09:17 AM by randr
It took years and the Iran/Contra investigation to bring out the fact that they had gone behind Carters' back and negotiated with the enemy in order to embarrass and subsequently steal the election.
Americans have been left with the impression of Carter as a weak man when they should have been inflamed with by the traitorous acts of the Reaganites who are still in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Now your talking!
They didnt bring out the facts though, they buried them in a women's restroom. This was BIPARTISAN SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRACY, and a coverup of GHWB's PERSONAL act of TREASON! Some of these things have to be maintained by citizens in the discourse because the media and the government are in collusion to hide the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinanator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
27. That was OPEC not Bushcorp
Bush was not THAT influential at the time. Different situation. Although for years those things have been happening, in that gas prices rise towards the end of a term and drop near the election I believe. They are simply getting theirs when the gettings good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC