This and That

Ron Suskind

Ron Suskind (author of "The One Percent Solution," which won a Pulitzer Prize) began publicizing a new book today and managed to garner the headlines. In his new book (can't remember its title), Suskind claims that he has inside testimony that the Bush Administration instructed the CIA to forge a letter, drafted by someone in the White House, purporting to be from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam Hussein. The subject of the letter was the completion of terrorist training by Mohammad Ali (chief 9/11 terrorist who died in the crash into the World Trade Center) in Iraqi. Such a letter would "prove" the Al Qaeda - Iraq 9/11 link.

Suskind's accusation is quite a claim and should be investigated by the FBI, if for no other reason than to expose Suskind himself. At the moment, George Tenant (head of CIA at the time), the White House and the two CIA insiders, whom Suskind claims told him the story, have all denied it.

I am skeptical of Suskind's story and find it difficult (but not impossible) to believe senior White House people (i.e. Bush or Cheney) would have been involved. It may be that the story "grew with the telling." Tenant, while denying the main story, admits the head of Iraqi Intelligence was talking to the British on WMD and telling them Iraq had none. However, the CIA finally concluded he was an untrustworthy source and discounted the intelligence the British passed on to us from him.

According to Suskind's book, when told of the "no WMD in Iraq," Bush apparently became frustrated and said something to the effect, "let's get him to put it in writing." While that apparently never came about, it may have motivated someone else to come up with the forgery idea on the Iraq-Al Qaeda 9/11 connection - i.e. if the President wants written proof on all of this, we'll provide it.

But, having voiced my skepticism on Bush's personal involvement, forgeries seem to have a way of coming up in the Bush Administration. The story of Iraqis trying to purchase Niger yellow cake uranium apparently began with forgeries, which some have tentatively traced back, through Italian Intelligence, to a former Republican operative in the USA. The International Atomic Energy Agency identified the Niger-Iraqi official letter exchanges as forgeries. Joe Wilson (The Valarie Pflame Affair) was sent to investigate and confirmed the forgeries.

Also, I've long been suspicious of the Dan Rather forgeries concerning Bush's military service. Based on totally different and more credible sources, the substance of the forgeries were apparently based on accurate information. [The Air Force officer who supposedly wrote them is dead, but his secretary has been quoted as saying that while what is in the forged letters is pretty much what her boss thought of Bush, she didn't think he would have been dumb enough to put it in writing.] Yet once the letters were shown to be forgeries, the issue turned from Bush's military service to Dan Rather's credibility. No one paid attention to the substance of the forged letter's charges, which in all likelihood were very close to the truth. [Basically stating that Bush was less than the ideal soldier.]

If an investigation shows Suskind's charges to be false, he should be appropriately censured by his colleagues and the American public by assigning his "journalism" to the realm of fiction, assuming he broke no laws. If his charges turn out to be true, someone at the White House needs to go to jail, although there is a good chance that particular person has already been pardoned once - i.e. Scooter Libby, apparent hitman for the VP. Hmmm? Sort of a common fault among ideologically driven personalities wherein the "end" is the only thing that really matters and the "means" are...well, whatever it takes.

More on Oil

O'Bama has shifted a bit on off-shore drilling, in face of public opinion polls, which are strongly in favor of such. But rather than pay attention to the details of his new plan, the media emphasis is on "flip-flopping," once known in democratic politics as "compromise."

I'm convinced that the current push for off-shore drilling and ANWR drilling has much more to do with politics than energy. No one (either Republican or Democrat) has adequately explained the sudden surge in oil prices. During the last year that price doubled. While some of the surge is due to increased demand, demand has NOT doubled over the same period. Or, if it has, we can throw out the economic forecasters, as well as the economists. I suspect this is a complex issue, with many causes. Current prices seem driven by futures. Futures may be driven by: more forecast demand than previously thought; less global reserves than previously thought; higher than forecast recovery costs; hedge fund money flowing into oil futures seeking to recover from sub-prime mortgage losses; OPEC dissatisfaction with U.S. foreign policy; oil companies "last hurrah," etc., etc.

Whether this is through a coincidental confluence of motivations, or by design, the timing for repealing the ban on off-shore and ANWR drilling is running out. The Bush Presidency has but 5 months to run. Odds are that both a Democratic Congress and President will follow. If successful, it is a situation that could last easily for four years or as long as a generation; time during which it would be unlikely to obtain a repeal of the drilling ban. And, as alternative fuels are brought on stream motivated by an acknowledged decline in limited oil reserves, oil prices will rise and alternative energy will become more price competitive (although the "natural" market price should rise somewhat more slowly than it has during the last year).

"Politically," now is the time to push for the ban on drilling. All else being equal (price, convenience, etc.) Americans, in light of global warming and CO2 pollution, will choose non-fossil fuels (solar, wind, natural gas) over oil. [Nuclear energy and clean-coal may be included if associated safety and environmental problems are overcome.]

The arguments for and against the drilling ban require more fact and transparency. Part of this transparency involves in determining who is driving the surge in oil prices? Is it OPEC itself? Is it the global oil companies? Is it speculation? Is it demand? Probably a bit of each, but it is important to understand how much each contributes to the surge in prices in order to formulate a new energy policy.

In understanding this, it is important to look at a history of oil purchases (both spot and futures) over the past year. What factor began the price surge? It would certainly NOT be in the interests of end-users (national purchases such as China and India or in corporate purchases, such as airlines, trucking companies, etc.) to drive up oil prices, although they would have to follow and add to rising prices. OPEC might want higher prices, but unless they were trying to manipulate pricing by purchasing each other's oil, they would have a negligible impact. OPEC countries may control production within their countries, but they can't determine prices in a free market, which is how the price is presumably set. Further, I know of no significant reduction in global production of a magnitude that would double prices in a year.

[Caveat: Saudi reserves have declined somewhat and there is mounting evidence that the Saudis have exaggerated their reserves since the nineteen eighties. Political instability, in Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq and Iran, due in no small measure to a failed Bush foreign policy, would also be a factor driving future oil pricing. Bush is not alone in having done little to address a comprehensive energy policy; neither Congress or prior Presidents have done much over the last 30 years. However, it IS, politically advantageous for Bush to seek to blame the current situation on Democrats and environmentalists today and "suggest" that drilling "now and here" is the solution. And, now that the legacy thing has been basically trashed, it wouldn't hurt to give a little something to all those guys contributing to the Bush Presidential Library.]

I have no personal preference for or against expanding drilling, other than that noted above - i.e. all else being equal, it's probably best for all of us to shift, as rapidly as possible, away from fossil fuels toward non-fossil fuels and/or non-polluting fossil fuels, such as clean-coal. However, due to future global energy demands and increasing production costs associated with future energy sources, both fossil and non-fossil, I have serious doubts that "drilling" solves anything in regard to "price." I suspect that increased energy efficiencies at both the manufacturing and consumer level will ultimately reduce consumption and prices will gradually fall. This is a game of technologies and lead-times and I suggest looking long and hard at the "promises" of those who argue for drilling. If we can transition in ten-twenty years to inexpensive energy sources (as measured by a percentage of household income), which gives us roughly equivalent performance and have the added value of reducing carbon emissions, I see no reason why we shouldn't leave a little oil in the ground - including that which is off-shore or in ANWR. Remember...whatever happens, whereever we drill...those last jillion barrels are going to be real expensive, unless we tell the people currently driving the price up, "keep your oil, we don' t really need it."

Note to the two people who regularly read this (well...I hope two...maybe one): Due to relocation, I'll be busy for the next month or so...but stay tuned.