As we noted yesterday, the "revelation" in Bob Woodward's book that Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar promised to manage oil prices for the benefit of Dubya's reelection campaign poses big problems for those elements of the VRWC who like to combine vitriolic hatred of the House of Saud with intense adoration of the House of Bush. [By the way, we say "revelation" because Woodward is merely the prominent person who put in print what we already knew, that Prince Bandar has long since ceased to serve the interests of his country and instead allows his 30 years of cronyism with the Bushes to influence Saudi policy] So anyway, here's how the Wall Street Journal online is handling the problem -- with that old classic, the chopped, out-of-context from John Kerry. So what did that awful John Kerry say? Well, he's against low oil prices:
[Begin Kerry quote] "That is outrageous and unacceptable to the American people," Mr. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, declared during a campaign stop in Florida.
Why would lower gas prices be "outrageous and unacceptable"? And why was Kerry warning of this prospect on the same day that, as Reuters reports, "the national price for motor fuel hit a record high for the fourth straight week"?
Now, this is a willful misreading of what Kerry said; here is the actual sequence from the NYT story:
In that discussion [Bandar-Dubya], Mr. Kerry said, "the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense made a deal with Saudi Arabia that would deliver lower gas prices."
"But here's the catch," Mr. Kerry, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, said at a gathering in Lake Worth, Fla. "The American people would have to wait until the election, until November of 2004," for the Saudis to lower oil prices.
"If this sounds wrong to you, that's because it is fundamentally wrong," .... "And if, as Bob Woodward reports, it is true that gas supplies and prices in America are tied to the American election, tied to a secret White House deal, that is outrageous and unacceptable to the people of America."
It doesn't take any further spelling out to see what he meant. But for opinionjournal, with that messy business about Bandar now dealt with, they are free to return to the Saudi-bashing. They link to a story about research on malformation amongst children of related parents, which used samples of families from Saudi Arabia.
Heading of their account:
The Bright Side of Incest.
Concluding line:
Saudi inbreeding is bad for the health of Saudis, but it may have benefits for the rest of us.
Charming.