Reuters

President Obama’s idea of waging “aggressive personal diplomacy“? Attacking President Bush for blustering belligerence:

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.

Yup. That explains Iranian aggression for the last 30 years against the United States.

Meanwhile, Israel seizes 500 tons of Iranian weapons on Wednesday:

Israel displayed on Wednesday the contents of the ship it seized off Cyprus – crates filled with rockets, missiles, mortars, anti-tank weapons and munitions – the largest such haul in the country’s history. Israel’s claim that the weapons came from Iran were bolstered by Iranian markings on the sides of the containers and what it said was a document proving the ship had set off from an Iranian port.

Israel has not publicly shown the document, however, nor offered evidence to back its assertion that the weapons were headed for Lebanon’s Hezbollah fighters.
ad_icon

“Hezbollah categorically denies it has any connection with the weapons which the Zionist enemy claims it seized,” the group said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press in Beirut on Thursday.

There was no comment from Lebanese officials.

Israeli defense officials said the arms cache would have given Hezbollah, which fought a monthlong war against the Jewish state in 2006, enough firepower to sustain a full month of fighting on the scale of that war.

However, the officials also said the weapons would not have significantly enhanced Hezbollah rockets’ ability to reach deeper into Israel, as the haul consisted of weapons already in Hezbollah’s possession.

The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the military has yet to formally comment on the potential value of the shipment’s contents to militants.

Iran has never acknowledged giving weapons to Hezbollah. Proof of large-scale Iranian weapons shipments to its proxy forces on Israel’s borders could reinforce Israeli demands for tough action – possibly even a pre-emptive strike – against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel sees Iran as its biggest threat because of what it believes to be Tehran’s ambitions to acquire atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear program seeks only to generate energy.

Anyone believe that?

Apparently, President Obama’s allure is losing its luster from Iranian dissidents themselves. Pro-Democracy protesters are echoing the “you’re either with us, or with the terrorists” language of President Bush:

Today, the fundamentalist government in Tehran held protests to commemorate the event, as usual burning the American flag and encouraging shouts of “Death to America.”

This time, pro-democracy protesters — many wearing the movement’s signature green — were heard to shout, “Death to dictators.”

But the demonstrators, who risked beatings, imprisonment and even death to stage their rebellion, also had a message for the White House.

Witnesses said the protesters could be heard chanting: “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

The Obama administration has so far been reluctant to convey American support for the demonstrators, fearful it would undercut the protest movement and allow President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (who some claim can be seen in the 1979 photo above as a young revolutionary) to brand the pro-democracy movement as the work of foreign agitators.

So the White House has so far kept its distance from the movement as the West attempts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear facilities.

Is it too much to ask of our president that he promote peace by showing support for freedom and democracy across the globe? That he take the time out of his busy schedule to recognize historic significance and symbolism in the advancement of democracy?

Munitions seized by Israeli authorities on a ship near Cyprus, are presented in the port of the Israeli city of Ashdod, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009. Israeli commandos seized a ship Wednesday that defense officials said was carrying hundreds of tons of weapons from Iran bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, the largest arms shipment Israel has ever commandeered.(AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov ) (Tsafrir Abayov – AP)

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

Good grief:

“if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”.

So says President Barack Obama. Or I should say: Barack Hussein Obama.

That’s right: Barack Hussein Obama. Say it proud. Say it out loud. The middle moniker that dared not speak its name during the election campaign is now front and centre of the US president’s attempt to woo the Muslim world, the theme of his visits to Riyadh on Wednesday and Cairo on Thursday.

Mike posted yesterday on how it wasn’t ok to point out Senator Obama’s Muslim roots when he was campaigning for president; but now that he is president, and when it suits him politically, it’s now ok to embrace his connection to Muslims?

Melanie Phillips substantiates President Obama’s claim that “if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” :

Indonesia: 207,105,000 (88.2%);

Pakistan: 167,430,801 (95%);

India: 156,254,615 (13.4%);

Turkey: 70,800,000 (99%);

Egypt: 70,530,237 (90%);

Nigeria: 64,385,994 (45%);

Iran: 64,089,571 (98%);

Algeria: 32,999,883 (99%);

Morocco: 32,300,410 (99%);

Afghanistan: 31,571,023 (99%)

Saudi Arabia: 26,417,599 (100%)

USA: 4,558,068 (1.5%)

Just what planet is this US President on? Or is this not a statement but an aspiration?

200+ Years ago, a man was elected our first President after successfully fighting the first democratic revolution against the world’s greatest superpower at the time. President George Washington, the first American soldiers, sailors, Marines, Rangers, and people….
refused to bow down before the one they were told to serve. Once President, Washington never bowed or asked anyone to bow.

What was the point of the revolution if not to say,
‘no man needs to bow before another-especially a King’

UPDATE:
Rather than admit a simple mistake of protocol, or an err in judgement, the White House tells us that we did not see what we saw.

THEN READ UP ON IT

Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that Senator Obama is finally getting national security briefings, reading up on the dangers in the world by reading 4yr old books about 20yr old subjects. I’m really thrilled. I’d of course prefer he read MY BOOKS, but maybe he’ll get around to it. More than anything, I really would have loved-I MEAN LOVED(!!!!) to have been a fly on the wall at the first NatSec briefing of his cabinet appointees. Oh MAN that had to be a conundrum!

“We have to leave Iraq 18 months from now per the campaign pledge, but the DoD says they can’t do it logistically. Hillary Clinton at State says it’d ’cause chaos and force a third invasion of Iraq (OUCH, tough sell to the DNC base!). Intel guys are saying that 1) AQ was in Iraq before the invasion, 2) AQ chose to make Iraq the central front in the gwot (not Bush), 3) AQ is being decimated by Bush’s Surge so leaving now let’s AQ revive in an oil-rich/money rich country. They also tell me that Iran’s gonna be making 40+nukes a month starting in January, India is moving troops to border w Pakistan & both sides are on their bi-annual brink-of-nuclear-war escapade. Oh, and despite the speech in Germany…ain’t nobody in the world gonna stop the anarchy in Africa or SE Asia.”

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE!

Suggestion: Appoint Dennis Kucinich to form a Dept of Peace and abolish the DoD. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Poor Obama. He honestly had no clue & actually believed the leftist rhetoric. He followed Kos and Huffpo instead of the Milblogs and Flopping Aces. If he HAD been reading FA, then he wouldn’t need to be such a “voracious” reader of dated books. I’m only shocked he’s not skipping to the Cliff’s Notes.

Although the Taliban and al-Qaeda have consistently rejected overtures to make peace with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces until they leave Afghanistan, the latest initiative led by Saudi Arabia, and approved by Washington and London, is on track.

Reports emerged this week that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted high-level talks in Mecca between representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban. If a middle road is found, next year’s elections in Afghanistan could be held under the supervision of peacekeeping forces from Islamic countries, rather than those of NATO.

link

Z, a friend of mine, had an opportunity to listen to Dr. Jasser speak; and I think came away from the talk, a better person for it, and a better advocate for fighting the war against Islamic terror and Islamism, without lashing out at at the hundreds of millions of Muslims who practice the faith, in peace.

I know this doesn’t sit well with many right-wingers. Good. Sometimes, we need the stupid smacked out of us. We’ve become so educated on the dangers of the Islamist threat by immersing ourselves in Robert Spencerian research and anti-Jihad books, blog any and every news story on honor killings and Islamic cultural encroachments upon our western society, that we find validation in our dim view of Islam as a whole.

I’m not saying there aren’t real dangers and a real threat from wahhabism and Islamist fundamentalism. But I am saying that some of us are becoming religious bigots, where our prejudice and hatred are based upon self-indoctrination of anti-Islam literature. Our views against Islam are shaped not by a lack of education, but by an overabundance and an overbalance of education, tilted in one direction. We are all-too willing to believe the worst about Islam, and zero-in only on repeating the negative stories. Positive stories about Muslims get ignored or dismissed as the exception; we seize upon the negative news, then cry out “where are the moderate voices?” We don’t see them, because we’re too busy looking for the worst.

We are under threat of becoming the stereotype that multicultural liberals wish to see us as: intolerant, warmongering, religious and ethnic bigots.

I have an anti-Islam troll living under the bridge of my blog; anytime I come out with a post that doesn’t condemn the entire religion, he will crawl out of his hole to tell me how I am a dhimmi and defender of evil. Bigots like him are part of the problem and have their heads up their asses every bit as much as they rightfully accuse some of us as having our heads in the sand.

bin Laden and Zawahiri tried to convince the Muslim world that the West are at war with Islam. They have failed. That is, unless they’ve simultaneously convinced the West that Islam is at war with them.

Dr. Jasser represents the kind of modernity and reformation that Islam needs to undergo if it is to survive peacefully alongside the other great world religions in the 21st century. We should not fall into the trap of becoming what we hate.

Here’s an excerpt from Islam vs. Islamists (apparently uploaded by Tarek Fatah):

Another clip:

This is the PBS episode from their program series that they had initially pulled, apparently influenced by the likes of CAIR, who they deem to be the “true” “moderates”, because they are bearded. I got to see a free screening of this documentary in June of 2007 and highly recommend it to everyone. It is the irony of ironies that the multiculturalist liberals at PBS would suppress Islam vs. Islamists, when the four voices of those in the program are the very “moderates” people need to hear from.

When we lament, “where are the moderate voices in Islam?”, “Why aren’t they speaking out and denouncing Islamic terror?”…..well, you can thank, in part, PBS.

Ok, readers: Let me have both barrels in the face, and tell me why I’m wrong.

…but September 11th wasn’t just an awful day seven years ago. It’s a historical date that interestingly enough proves that the past is prologue. Religion, Liberty, and American history all collide on that fateful date again and again throughout history.

Written in 1981, 20 years prior to the 2001 attacks, a book called “The Birth of Christ Recalculated”. The author, Dr. Ernest L. Martin, claims to have calculated the exact date of Jesus Christ’s birth based on the celestial charts for that era. The date of Christ’s birth, based on the famous Star of Bethlehem, is calculated to be September 11, 3 B.C…

There is another significant religious event occurring about 2000 years later on September 11, 1999. According to Hebrew Scriptures September 11, 1999 was the 6,000th anniversary of Adam’s creation, and year 1 on the Hebrew calendar.

1609 the explorer Henry Hudson sailed into New York harbor and discovers Manhattan Island and the Hudson River.

1772, about 300 Indians and 50 British soldiers began the siege of Fort Henry ending on September 11, 1782. link

1776 After the fall of New York to the British, a Peace Conference was held between General Howe and three prominent representatives of the Continental Congress – Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Edward Rutledge. After taking the Americans key city, Howe thought he was entitled to a peace settlement. The Americans, having declared independence in July, considered separation from England as non-negotiable. The conference of Sept. 11, 1776, ended and the war continued for seven years.
link

1777 The British defeat the Americans, led by George Washington, at the Battle of Brandywine Creek in the American War of Independence. The battle is regarded as the first where Americans carried the American Flag (Old Glory) to battle.

1922 – The post WWI British Mandate of Palestine begins.

1941 construction officially begins at the Pentagon.

1972 The troubled Munich Olympic Games end, and the world witnesses the beginnings of terrorism. Eleven Israelis are killed by terrorists.

1978 – U.S. President Jimmy Carter, President Sadat of Egypt, and Prime Minister Begin of Israel met at Camp David and agreed on a framework for peace between Israel and Egypt and a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

1990 New World Order speech
“We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, — a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”-President George Bush Sr.
From the moment this speech is given until his death, the United States is effectively at war with Saddam Hussein’s regime. link

1996 While the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq ended five years earlier, the cease-fire agreement was broken even before being ratified by the UN. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm, a low level war continued with Saddam’s regime. Iraqi gunners fire an SA-6 missile at two U.S. F-16s over northern Iraq but miss. A fighter and helicopter briefly violate the southern no-fly zone.

1996 Backed by Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban militia conquered the city of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. This city serves as his base of operations and is friendly to the Al Queda network until at least 2008.

2001 A Predator unmanned aerial vehicle is shot down by Saddam Hussein’s regime over Iraq. It was unarmed and on a UN-authorized surveillance mission monitoring the southern no-fly zone.

2001 Al Queda hijacks 4 American passenger planes, flies two into the World Trade Center, and 1 into the Pentagon. The last is crashed by the passengers’ attempt to retake the plane. 10,000’s are wounded, and almost 3000 people killed. The attacks were authorized in “Late 1998/early 1999” by Osama Bin Laden, but they were planned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed (captured in March 2003). The authorization was done in response to America’s Operation Desert Fox; air strikes against Iraq (“We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment.”-AQ #2 man & strategic planner, Dr Ayman al Zawahiri 12/18/98). According to the 911 Commission, Osama Bin Laden authorized these attacks and many more in response to: 1) the continuing American war on Iraq, 2) the presence of American forces in Saudi Arabia (forces which were there to wage war on Iraq), and 3) the US support for Israel which many Muslim extremists claimed was the real reason for the continuing US presence in the Middle East.

link to more
link to more

1:  questionable speculators activity
2:  decreasing supply and increasing demand – and peak oil theories
3:  Iraq or Middle East conflicts and terrorism
4: falling value of US dollar

I’m neither an accomplished economist, nor an oil expert.  But I’m one curious individual, so I set out to see if I could shed some light how just what to believe.  There’s considerable amount of data here (meaning long! a week’s worth!) but I’ll share my research on the four issues mentioned above… and my attempt to put it all into perspective…. sans politics. (the “gasps” abound, no doubt…)

To agree on a solution, we need to know the cause of the problem. 

The article that sparked my increased motivation and quest came from Australia’s Herald Sun yesterday, Speculators to blame, says OPEC”.

The monarch, who said Saudi Arabia would give $US1.5 billion ($1.57bn) to efforts to ease energy shortages in poor nations, told the 36-nation summit his country was “very concerned” about consumers worldwide.

He blamed increased oil consumption and taxes on fuel, but said: “Among other factors behind this unjust increase in oil prices is the abhorrent act of speculators acting for their own selfish interests”.

The most common thought on the speculators is that the buying frenzy is creating a positive feedback look, driving the prices artificially high and creating an economic bubble – much as was done with the housing prices in both the UK and USA. Along that line of thought, Congress is busy crafting legislation aimed at regulating speculators, while McCain has called for “thorough and complete investigation of speculators” to see if they’ve driven up oil prices.

Alan Reynolds termed this knee jerk reaction as a “witch hunt that’s clearly about oil” in an article that ran in the NY Sun June 20th, titled “Scapegoating the Speculators”, and was reproduced on the Cato Institute site.Reynold’s debates OPEC’s accusation. Speculators, purchase the contracts and sell those before their expiration date, in the hopes of making profits. Sometimes this entails betting the prices goes down instead of up. Or as he puts it, Guess wrong on the direction, and you lose money.

John Maynard Keynes (in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money) offers this definition of speculation:

Speculation: The activity of forecasting the psychology of the market.
Speculative motive: The object of securing profit from knowing better than the market what the future will bring forth.

Keeping that definition in mind, Reynolds believes speculators are betting prices will be going down.

Purely financial speculators needn’t play futures at all. They can simply buy (or short) the exchange-traded US Oil Fund, which tracks the price of West Texas crude. And The Wall Street Journal reports that short interest in that fund is up 140 percent since January, outnumbering long bets by two to one.

Speculators, in other words, are increasingly leaning toward betting the price of oil will go down, not up. So they’re unlikely villains if prices do keep rising.

According to an excerpt from Martin Fridson, “Exactly What Do You Mean By Speculation?” Journal of Portfolio Management, Fall 1993, Reynold’s theory that current speculation is a bet that prices will be going down actually holds water.

Taking the debate a step further, Fridson suggested viewing speculation in the context of “Modern Portfolio Theory.” Building on the work of Harry Markowitz, William Sharpe, and others, Fridson concluded that “The common thread between speculation (as currently defined) and transactions that seem speculative, yet fail to satisfy all the established criteria, is that they are all bets against the consensus view.”

I think we can all safely concur that betting oil prices will decline is not the consensus…. Certainly speculative buying can inflate the real value of a product by simply increasing the demand for that product (which in this case is contracts only, not the delivery of oil) in the extreme.  However some competitive speculation often results in an efficient and healthy market.

As for the more logical idea of betting on further price increases, Reyolds counters with:

Yes, if the price of next month’s oil futures goes up, that can encourage producers to slow their sales on the spot market. And a higher price for next month’s oil can encourage refiners to buy more now rather than later. Both reactions could push the cash price up.

But they would also cause oil inventories to rise. [Mata Note: Keep this inventory... aka stock on hand = less demand, translating to more supply available to sell... in mind for info about China further down.] And rising inventories always bring the price back down. Yet US oil inventories appear modest at present – so there’s little evidence that speculation had much to do with recent prices (aside from one-day spikes from scary rumors or news).

Economic bubbles and artificallyinflated prices can, as we again know with the housing markets, lead to quick, and possibly steep declines. The steepest decline would, of course, be recognized as a crash… which is George Soros prediction.Sorosis one of those, along with OPEC, that blame speculators.

There are few western media publications that do not blame speculators. But because I can see Reynold’s legitmate point, I’ll have to put the speculators in the “contributing to the problem” column. But I don’t see it as the primary driving force.

This seques us easily to the supply and demand argument. It cannot be questioned that the world is increasing it’s consumption (demand), so that only leaves us with the supply question. Is oil output sufficient for the demand?

Again we find a mixed bag. The Saudis insist they have enough oil to sustain needs for decades to come, and capitulated to US demands on the second request. They did, however, refuse the 1st request from GWB just a month earlier, saying it wasn’t a supply issue since no customers were asking for more oil.

The US was not alone in putting pressure on OPEC. British PM Brown flew to the summit with the same request… pump more. See OPEC chief dismisses Brown’s call to boost productions as “irrational”And like the Saudi’sfirst meeting with GWB, they refused. Cost of living in the UK has risen to a 16 year high of 3.3%.

Yet is it irrational? And if so, why the change of heart by the Saudis?

According to MarketWatch on June 19th, China’s reduction of subsidies, which precipitated their price hike to consumers, resulted in oil prices down $4.75… all based on “concern” for a slowdown in demand.

Translation? The Chinese nailed their population with a hefty price increase instantly following removing subsidies. The market anticipated the Chinese, not an affluent people, would decrease their demand which would increase available supply of marketable oil on the world market.

Note: The assumption of more available oil supply because of less Chinese demand resulted in drop in barrel prices.

But that oil per barrel price didn’t last when reality set in, and they didn’t see the Chinese running in droves from the pump.

Oil rose by more than $4 a barrel today as dealers reassessed their view about a fuel price increase in China announced by Beijing earlier this week. After a $5 fall yesterday, speculation that Chinese demand might rise pushed the price of both US and Brent crude above $136 a barrel, within sight of the record of just under $140 a barrel briefly reached earlier in the week.

The Chinese found themselves in the real shock and awe price moment. The government had been holding the prices down (for 8 months) with price caps until they were forced to remove them by the state-owned oil companies who had been functioning in the red for selling to China at a loss. Prices jumped 18% virtually overnight. Add’l pressure was put on China by foreign governments who argue that subsidised Chinese fuel is keeping global prices high.

What about the other 93% of the worlds current oil reserves, owned or controlled by governments? Are their subsidies also affecting oil prices?

Also an issue is the oil output declines by the state owned oil reserves. The absence of private investors in state owned oil producers – and the inability for a socialist country to improve it’s own production output with dwindling public funds – factors heavily in their decline of oil production. This is a situation that, as their economy declines with their oil income, they become another China – dependent upon oil production that runs in the red…. until it can’t any longer.

All these factors and events make me believe that supply vs demand is not meriting the attention it deserves by Congress and the western media.

As a side bar to supply/demand, comes the peak oil debate… or, per the liberal site, The Oil Drum, the limitations of natural production of oil by Mother Nature. But even these environmentalists admit oil’s still prevalent. They just claim it will be cost prohibitive to pump it.

Also on the same site, and from another very liberal/environmental source, the APSO, is a guest post by Rembrandt Koppelaar, Chairman of ASPO Netherlands.Mr. Koppelaar offers a very valuable lesson when reading about peak oil reports. Ala how do they figure “decline” – net or gross – when reading media reports and source material?

Gross decline rate – the drop in production that would occur if oil companies would not try to halt declines, or the natural decline level. Decline can be halted by introducing new techniques / workovers / drilling more wells and so forth.

Net Decline rate – the drop in production that occurs when the efforts by oil companies to halt decline are included.

Koppelaar has lots of charts and pictures to entertain. He even points out that between 2001 and 2006, there has not been a decline in the “liquids” production. But what is the most important point to take away from informative post is the fact studies upon which many rely (like Congress…..) are:

1: dealing with existing oil fields and not necesarily future oil fields
2: perhaps not taking into account that the oil supply is not being drained, but is requiring more drilling to extract the still existing oil
3: as our technology improves, the “cost prohibitive factor” becomes less relevant

Because of the vagueness and disclosures on most links about peak oil, I’m going to say that peak oil – in the context of the doom’n'gloom apocolyptic end to oil available – is a highly debatable subject…. all which can change depending on technology, and exploration and development of new oil fields.

That said, I’ll put supply and demand into a “definitely a factor” column.

As for refining – it is a separate issue known already to affect US prices. Our prices at the pump are in direct response to our refinining limitations and interruptions… i.e. hurricanes/Mother Nature damaging for our coastal refineries, and federal mandates forcing different mixtures twice a year. Refining is definitely an issue, but one that comes into play between the price per barrel and the gas pump. But it is always worth noting that the head of OPEC cites refining limitations as a factor of the price per barrel.

Oddly enough, many of the articles morph right from the supply/demand issue into the conflicts/terrorism effect. But not in the direction most would think.

The Saudis (only) agreed to increase oil output at the summit – despite their claims “no one was asking for more oil”. Yet still the prices surged in the wake of that announcement, with light sweet crude at over $135 and $136 a barrel the following days. (Note: light sweet crude is the least expensive to refine). Why?

Terrorism… but not Iraq. The hotbead area directly affecting prices is one where the US has no military conflict – Nigeria’s sweet crude fields that remain under constant and deliberate assault from Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) since their formation in March 2006.

Nigeria is the world’s eighth largest oil exporter and the fifth largest supplier of crude to the US. MEND’s recent sabotage of pipelines and other oil facilities has so far shut off over a fifth of the country’s oil output, steadily driving up world oil prices.

The above quote was from 2006, however their terrorists antics, designed to slice away at Nigeria’s oil income, remains an ongoing influence today. Again, from the CNN article just yesterday, about prices rising in the wake of the Saudi output increase:

Oil prices rose Monday as investors shrugged off Saudi Arabia’s pledge to increase its oil production if needed, focusing instead on disruptions to Nigerian supply and heightened Middle East tensions.

snip

Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Friday that it cannot meet contractual obligations to export oil from a Nigerian oil field following a militant attack Thursday. Nigerian oil workers also reportedly decided to strike at a Chevron Corp. facility beginning Monday.

But oil prices might find some relief from Sunday’s announcement by Nigeria’s main militant group that it would halt attacks starting at midnight Tuesday. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta declared a unilateral cease-fire, saying elders in the restive southern region had asked the fighters to allow peace efforts to go ahead.

The group’s attacks have sliced about one quarter from Nigeria’s normal oil daily oil output, helping buoy crude prices in international markets.

“The market will see if indeed that cease-fire holds for a bit of time,” Shum said.

Unlike “concern” about attack on Iran oil fields, which has not happened, Nigeria’s conflicts are real… not speculation. This again sidles right back into the supply/demand argument. When looking at the terrorism/war effects on oil, it was an interesting trip thru memory lane in the media.

From a Feb 2007 Vanity Fair article by Sebastian Junger – “Blood Oil: Politics & Power” – Nigeria figured prominently even prior.

On June 23, 2005, a group of high-ranking government officials were convened in a ballroom of the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C., to respond to a simulated crisis in the global oil supply. The event was called “Oil ShockWave,” and it was organized by public-interest groups concerned withenergy policy and national security. Among those seated beneath a wall-size map of the world were two former heads of the C.I.A., the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The scenario they were handed was this:

Civil conflict breaks out in northern Nigeria—an area rife with Islamic militancy and religious violence—and the Nigerian Army is forced to intervene. The situation deteriorates, and international oil companies decide to end operations in the oil-rich Niger River delta, resulting in a loss of 800,000 barrels a day on the world market. Since Nigerian oil is classified as “light sweet crude,” meaning that it requires very little refining, this makes it a particularly painful loss to the American market. Concurrently, in this scenario, a cold wave sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere boosts global demand by 800,000 barrels a day. Because global oil production is already functioning at close to maximum capacity (around 84 million barrels a day), small disruptions in supply shudder through the system very quickly. A net deficit of almost two million barrels a day is a significant shock to the market, and the price of a barrel of oil rapidly goes to more than $80.

What follows is almost comical considering today’s reality of oil at over $135 per barrel. Talk of how the US could sustain $80 per oil almost “indefinitely”, but that demand would decline. The Oil ShockWave panel suggested a scenario of near “simultaneous” terrorist attacks on oil supplies worldwide that could “easily send prices to $120 a barrel, and those prices, if sustained for more than a few weeks, would cascade disastrously through the American economy.”

Slowdown in the economy, yes. Evidently not quite disastrous… but certainly, if unable to stablize prices, ultimately could be disastrous not only for the US economy, but the global economy. The US marketplace is, afterall, the centerpiece for most of the world’s goods. When we can no longer afford to “go to the mall”, the effect will be felt like a shot heard round the world.

What I found was most interesting was Junger stated the last two US recessions were spiked by 1: an increase in oil prices and 2: unrest in Nigeria.

Because Nigerian oil is so vital to the American economy, President Bush’s State Department declared in 2002 that—along with all other African oil imports—it was to be considered a “strategic national interest.”

Even today, on The Oil Drum, Nigeria is raised as the main issue for terrorist disruption of the world’s oil supply.

On the heels of this weekend’s Saudi Oil summit, Nigerian production has dropped to the lowest level in 25 years. This was in part because militant attacks shut in as much as 345,000 barrels per day of Nigerian production in the past few days. The Nigerian militant group MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta) has demonstrated a continuing ability to interrupt production from Nigeria’s mature, onshore fields. However, the future promise of Nigerian oil is not onshore. Rather, it is the 1.25 million barrels per day of offshore production scheduled to come on line in the next 6 years. Analysts previously believed these offshore facilities were out of MEND’s reach.

The beauty of this particular post and source link is that offshore production… by someone, and hopefully private firms… can promise a more stable supply of Nigeria’s crude. But is anyone addressing this?

As for the rest of the Middle East conflicts? Israel vs “fill in the blank” has been going on for half a century. The US has been present in Saudi since the early 90s. In short, nothing has caused this much of a steady, sustained and leap of pricing. In light of this history and the constant state of middle eastern unrest for centuries, I’ll place conflicts and terrorism effect into possible, but not as likely column, and Nigeria’s situation under the supply/demand column.

Which bring us last to the falling of the US dollar. Certainly this decline affects more than just oil in the US economy, and the decline did not start with the rise in oil prices.

In 2007, the US trade deficit was “$708.5 billion, which is $1.6 trillion in exports minus $2.2 trillion in imports. The deficit improved by $50 billion in 2007, thanks to higher exports, a result of the declining dollar. (Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services,Exhibit 1″, March 11, 2008).” fast source here w/links to spreadsheets)

Again, contrary to the US citizens common belief, this is not attributable to Iraq war debt. The deficit is divided into two categories – petroleum related and consumer products. Together these categories equal 87% of the total national debt.

The trade deficit by category was:

$293 billion for petroleum related products,
$328 billion for consumer products,
$193 billion for all other goods,
$107 billion in surplus for services.
(See spreadsheet in Google Docs)

In a Cleverwithcash.com article,discussing subprimeloans, the US dollar and oil prices, they point out that both China and Japan are financing a great part of the US debt, holding US Treasuries. Their economy is effectively tied to ours.

To we laymen, on the surface it appears to be a bottomless feeding frenzy cycle… As US Dollar goes down, oil prices go up. As oil price increases, the US trade deficit goes up further for our petroleum related products, causing a lower dollar.

Yet why is it that Europe is also suffering from the interminably high prices with their Euro? According to Martin Feldstein,:

Because the oil market is global, with its price in different places virtually identical, the price reflects both total world demand for oil and total supply by all of the oil-producing countries. The primary demand for oil is as a transport fuel, with lesser amounts used for heating, energy, and as inputs for petrochemical industries like plastics. The increasing demand for oil from all countries, but particularly from rapidly growing emerging-market countries like China and India, has therefore been, and will continue to be, an important force pushing up the global price.

The thinking behind the question of whether oil would cost less today if it were priced in euros seems to be that, since the dollar has fallen relative to the euro, this would have contained the rise in the price of oil. In reality, the currency in which oil is priced would have no significant or sustained effect on the price of oil when translated into dollars, euros, yen, or any other currency.

Feldstein (a professor of economics at Harvard, former Chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, and President of the National Bureau for Economic Research) concurs that while the decline of the dollar doesn’t affect the rise in oil prices, the rise in oil does contribute to the deficit… which affects the dollar’s value. Thus, it is a separate issue to be reckoned with for the overall health of the US economy, and our continuation as the quintessential, coveted market globally. Based on this, I’ll place the falling dollar into the “not applicable” column for oil prices.

Which brings me at long last to digest all I’ve learned in the past week. A tenative summary about a very complex subject… one truly beyond most of us, and most certainly me. But in light that we have a Congress about to intercede, and media proclaiming they “know”, it behooves us all to have a more informed perspective. I hope this does that for you, as it did for me.

Of the four categories, it appears the most influential on oil prices is the oil supply/demand theory, peppered by refining. It is, however, not the lone culprit. Added to that is a degree of speculation and their effects… in theory and practice, perhaps not long term.

We’ve eliminated the falling dollar as an issue and, other than Nigeria (under supply/demand now), terrorism.

But the solution is as multifaceted as the problem … how to best address supply and demand, avoid legislation that is counterproductive to traditional speculation benefits, and not worsen our national debt with prohibitive trade laws.

Can Congress take off their blinders and abandon their standard tunnel vision? Truly, it’s not their strong suite. Their habits are to find somewhere/someone to assign blame, and reap legislative punishment on that declared scape goat. This is, per WSJ’s Keith Johnson, what they have planned.

In his article “Saudis or Speculators? Oil-Price Finger-Pointing Heats Up”, Congress is set to parade a list of witness that will give the elected elite exactly what they want to hear to push forward their proposed legislation on speculators.

Among the experts: Oppenheimer and Co. oil analyst Fadel Gheit, who famously and furiously blames speculation for the bulk of the price increase, as well as Michael Masters, a Virgin Islands-based fund manager who doesn’t hesitate to point the finger at colleagues. He noted in previous congressional testimony that in the last five years, speculation in crude futures has increased almost as much as physical demand for oil in China, another favorite bete noir. Other energy experts set to testify include speculation alongside a weak dollar, “peak oil” and relentless demand growth as a part of a “perfect storm” that explains today’s high oil prices.

They may convince the nation, after all the western media demonization, that they are correcting the situation. But after all I’ve read, I can’t help but believe they are missing the pulse of the problem. And that does not bode well for us, Joe Blow citizenry.

Yes, as oil prices are now past $120 a barrel, market watchers are now looking foward to $200 barrel oil, it’s causes and effects.

LINK

Maybe it’s because of all the Bush Derangement Syndrome rantings that have left my eyes in a near-permanent rolling motion, but I have to wonder:

If the Iraq War was all about oil [can I get a "NO BLOOD FOR OIL"?], then what will have the more devastating effect on oil prices next year: staying in Iraq and stabilizing the place, or retreating and letting it collapse?

Lord help me, but…I don’t see “Iraq” anywhere in this article.  Could it be [COULD IT BE?!] that the war in Iraq isn’t about oil?  Could Operation Iraqi Freedom be about Freedom?  I know, it’s crazy talk, but the coffee’s strong this morning, so I wonder, while the candidates are whining and pandering and bribing their way to nomination (abomination?), what idea addresses the cost of oil in 2009 best:

• a gas tax holiday
• a windfall profits tax on any company that makes too much money (oil companies to start with, computers to follow?)
• staying in Iraq to stabilize it
• retreating from Iraq and gambling on its collapse (if it does collapse post withdrawal, there is no doubt at all that a subsequent third invasion would be infinitely more costly in blood, treasure, and duration)
• Or perhaps something else?

What’s the best thing the next President can do to keep oil from reaching $200 barrel next year, and what’s the best course in Iraq given the prospect of $200barrel oil?

Additionally, what should the next President do in terms of Iran given the prospect of $200 barrel oil next year?

Almost half a year before the invasion of Iraq, on Oct 2, 2002 a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was presented to Congress per the “demands” of Congressional Democrats.  The Washington Post reported at the time that only about a dozen senators and a handful of representatives signed in for access to read the classified list of reasons to authorize force against Iraq.  Two days later, a vastly smaller version was declassified and more members of Congress read this one.  They griped that the “caveats” about the certainty regarding various concerns were not included, but what they didn’t tell their constituents was that those concerns were in the classified version that they were too busy/lazy to sign in and read.

Years later, another NIE was”demanded” by Congressional Democrats so that they could gauge the progress or lack of in Iraq.  Again, a classified version was presented to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a declassified version released, but few signed in to read the classified version, most ignored the declassified version, and only those parts that could be twisted to support their individual political agendas were released to the press.

Years later-again, another NIE was “demanded by Congressional Democrats to identify threats to the nation and gauge progress in Iraq.  As before, it was largely ignored after being demanded, and what wasn’t ignored was distorted, half-quoted, misquoted, and misrepresented to fit political agendas-by Democrats and Republicans.

The last time an NIE was presented to Congress, the Director of National Intelligence and representatives from the 16 intelligence agencies that put together these reports all made themselves available for a full day of briefings to Congress.  No one showed up except a few Republicans and fewer Democrats.  Speaker Pelosi and others were in Syria meeting with one of the state sponsors of the Iraqi insurgency instead.

This week Democratic members of Congress “demanded” (again) that the most recent NIE be declassified and presented to the public.

As if anyone cared to read the first one and see the reasons for the war in Iraq, or the subsequent ones that explained the dangers of withdrawal as well as the other regional threats.

Why “demand”?  Why even bother?  I mean, I LOVE reading these independent, bi-partisan reports, but it doesn’t change policy, policy-makers’ positions, or political activists rantings.  So why bother?  Oh yeah…it’s an election year, and politicians need to play politics with America’s intelligence reporting by exaggerating and dismissing the threats around the world lest they fail to misled constituents and fail to be re-elected.

Saudi Arabia on Wednesday beheaded a couple convicted of torturing to death a nine-year-old girl, including burning her with a red-hot spoon and beating her with a metal pipe, the interior ministry said.

Saudi Nashat Haji, 32, was beheaded by the sword for murdering his daughter, Khosoun, said a ministry statement carried by the official SPA news agency.

He was executed in the western city of Mecca along with his second Saudi wife, Iman Ghazawi, 27, after they both tortured the girl, including driving a car into her in the courtyard of her home.

Haji decided to “get rid of” his daughter after he became doubtful that he was her biological father from a previous marriage, the ministry said.

The Saudi Arabic-language daily Al-Watan later reported that DNA tests showed a 99.9% probability that the child was in fact his.

Actually, the beheading may have been too swift.

This National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is uncharacteristically well-written. It coldly, and apolitically presents the good, the bad, the ugly, and surprisingly addressed a long-time suspicion of those who support the war in Iraq about the frequent, deliberate, misleading of information regarding that war as a means of opposing it politically.

I was surprised, and in the strongest possible way I suggest everyone who is interested in the security of the United States should read this report. It’s a whole 47 pages, but the text is almost all 1-column and only covering 1/2 the page. Again, the NIE is also unusually well written, concise, and clear.

People who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) will find lots to complain about, but that’s the nature of the syndrome (see also Rosie O’Donnell’s claim this week that President Bush almost killed her back in 2000) .

However, there is a LOT of very good news in this report as well. The Bush Administration’s efforts to work with the UN, NATO, EU, and Arab League (coupled with the invasion of Iraq) does in fact appear to have prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The Bush Administration’s international diplomatic efforts and negotiations with North Korea seem to have successfully stopped North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration’s diplomatic and military offensive in Iraq has met with great success. And Al Queda’s capabilities and leadership have been severely reduced by the litany of Bush Administration counter-terrorism efforts around the world.

As I said, there is a lot of bad news as well-fuel for opponents of President Bush to distort, mislead, and present absent the counter good news; absent the full story, full perspective, and full truth.

• Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain. Iran’s international support of terrorists is on the rise in quantity and quality. Iran’s economic imposition of political will internationally remains on the rise.
• North Korea has threatened to give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups if threatened.
• The international drug and organized crime threat is on the rise.
• Al Queda may be severely wounded and pinned down, but it’s not out for the count.

The two things that surprised me the most were Al Queda’s recent upgrade from dreaming and dabbling with WMD to actually field testing. Apparently they tried injecting watermelons with poison. Those watermelons were bound for an Iraqi Army unit. Thankfully, the soldiers only became ill, and there were no deaths, but the point remains: Al Queda is no longer just dreaming about using WMD. They’re trying it.

To make matters worse, the US vs Them narrative continues from Al Queda, but it’s now in-line with the homegrown anti-Bush/”anti-war” movement here in the U.S.

“While the threat from such homegrown extremists is greater in Europe, the US is not immune. The threat here is likely to be fueled in part by propaganda and mis-characterizations of US foreign policy as harmful to Muslims, rather than by any formal assistance from al-Qa’ida or other recognized groups. The al-Qa’ida-propagated narrative of an “us versus them” struggle serves both as a platform and a potential catalyst for radicalization of Muslims alienated from he mainstream US population.”

This message has always been targeted at Muslims around the world in much the same manner as WWII NAZIs presented the repetitive “stabbed in the back” and “enemy among us” message about German-Jews; us vs them. It’s classic propaganda, but now the US intelligence community’s 17 different entities confirm that this message is resonating with Americans, and terrorism inside the US is now a growing threat-not because of a growth in Al Queda infiltration, but because of the increased infiltration of Al Queda’s propaganda-Muslims are being oppressed by the Bush Administration.

Again, in the strongest possible way, I encourage everyone who is concerned about American security, and the threat to our lives, to take some time and at least skim through this report. Be realistic when reading it too. After all, it is a threat assessment-not a rah rah rah political tambourine refrain. There is some ugliness to it, but be brave. There is some bad news in it, but have hope: there is some good news in it too.

Interesting new poll:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Most Saudi Arabia citizens interviewed in a poll oppose terrorism and want closer ties with the United States. But many Saudis remain opposed to making peace with Israel, according to what researchers call an unprecedented survey of the kingdom. Ten percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the al Qaeda terrorist network, according to a survey by Terror Free Tomorrow, an international public opinion research group based in Washington.

Fifteen percent said they have a favorable view of al Qaeda’s leader, Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, the poll found.

“I think that the people of Saudi Arabia have so overwhelmingly turned against bin Laden, al Qaeda and terrorism in general that nine out of 10 of them look at all three unfavorably,” the group’s president, Ken Ballen, said Monday.

Though the desert monarchy’s ruling family has close ties to the United States, it was also the home of 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers behind al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The kingdom also has been the target of a spate of al Qaeda attacks since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the origin of a large share of the Islamic militants implicated in suicide bombings in Iraq.

Pollsters questioned 1,004 Saudi adults in Arabic between November 30 and December 5, according to the group. The survey had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Saudis also have a better opinion of the United States than in other countries in the Muslim world, with 40 percent saying they view the U.S. favorably. That compares to 19 percent in Pakistan, according to a poll taken by the same group in August, and 21 percent of Egyptians, according to a May survey by the Pew Research Center.

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen said a spate of al Qaeda attacks on Saudi targets starting in 2003 appeared to have turned the Saudi public against the group.

“The results, while a little surprising, seem fair enough considering the circumstances,” he said.

But while the poll was encouraging, “It’s not all Kumbaya,” he added. Bergen said a “substantial minority” of Saudis — 30 percent — support fighting against U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq, and 52 percent would support Saudi Arabia’s development of nuclear weapons.

Most Saudis oppose al Qaeda, the survey suggests, and it also found limited support for two other groups the United States has branded terrorist organizations — Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic movement that rules Gaza, and Hezbollah, Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim militia that fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006.

“Finally, some good news,” Ballen said.

Thirty-three percent of Saudis viewed Hezbollah favorably, compared to 42 percent unfavorably. When asked about Hamas, 37 percent had a positive response, while 38 percent viewed the group unfavorably.

But Ballen said the survey shows the Saudi population is now one of the most pro-American in the Muslim world, with 69 percent of those surveyed supporting close ties between Riyadh and Washington.

“We had done a limited survey there about a year and a half ago and found very strong anti-American attitudes, so I was quite surprised by the results,” he said.

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was seen as the most important step in improving U.S.-Saudi ties by 85 percent of those surveyed. Most Saudis said they opposed their countrymen fighting in Iraq and favored helping the United States reach an end to the nearly five-year-old war there.

Support was also strong for increasing visas for Saudis to come to the United States, with 74 percent calling that a step that would improve their opinion. And 71 percent favored a free-trade pact between Washington and Riyadh, while 52 percent said a U.S.-brokered peace treaty between the Israelis and Palestinians would be an improvement.

Saudi King Abdullah is the leading advocate of an Arab League proposal that would normalize relations with the Jewish state in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the frontiers it held before the 1967 Mideast War.

But his support for a comprehensive Mideast peace “definitely does not carry over at all,” Ballen said: Thirty percent of Saudis support a peace treaty, even if it resulted in the establishment of a Palestinian state, the survey found.

“He’s not backed by his own citizens on that,” Ballen said.

Saudis expressed support for a free press and free elections, though 79 percent also said they continued to support an absolute monarchy — and 15 percent supported the recent sentence of 200 lashes and six months imprisonment of a 19-year old Shiite woman for being with a male acquaintance before she was gang-raped by seven men.

Abdullah announced Monday the woman would be pardoned.

Despite the kingdom’s somewhat forbidding reputation among Westerners, Ballen said those contacted were far more receptive to pollsters than most Americans. The poll’s response rate was 61 percent, compared to 10 to 15 percent for most U.S. surveys.