It's not yet clear who was behind it -- both Shia radicals and al-Qaeda would have the motive to do it -- but when I heard the word "Abqaiq," my heart skipped a couple of beats. It now appears that the facility was undamaged, since the car bombs went off at the outer security perimeter fence.

Abqaiq is the single most important oil facility in the world -- roughly two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's oil production flows through, around 6-7% of the entire world's oil supply. If there is a single facility which is the 'Achilles heel' of the world economy, it's Abqaiq. Contrary to what the press is reporting, it's not the refinery which is important, but the pipelines and pumping stations. Abqaiq is the main gathering center where the pipelines converge, and the oil is pumped onward into the Ras Tannura export terminal.

For more background, see this publication.

There is something very unsaid about this attack. First it was "attacked" and the oil prices jumped because of it and then actually, the "attack" was "foiled." But the oil prices are still up $1.97. So, there wasn't any oil lost, so why are the prices still up? It doesn't make sense to me.

Alma--
I'm going to guess it's because people are starting to price in the possibility of a successful attack on oil refinery. Yes, that possibility has always existed; today, it was nearly executed. That's got to have people worried and on edge.

I have a sick feeling that the ME is about to come apart at the seams in the next few months, starting with Iraq/Iran....

George Bush broke Iraq. Now the broken mess spreads far and wide. Almost like that flesh eating bacteria, Bush's foreign policies infect, rot, and consume. Insane is now mostly non-applicable. Bush's catastrophic leadership (?) will cost America dearly. For now and for years to come and long into our bleak future. I'm curious as to whether Congress is up to the task of looking past the political expedient and doing what they should have done quite a while back. Hold the Bush gang of evil war criminals to account. Impeachment hardly seems like a dirty word now.

At the risk of appearing abysmally ignorant, I have to ask this:

Could a complete ME breakdown be what this administration wants? If so, for what possible reason(s)? Is it possible that this administration could be successful at pulling off something other than spin?

Again, apologies for the simplistic query, but my head has been spun around so many times by this administration's actions that it's not clear which end is up anymore. All I know is that I'm somewhere very near the bottom of the heap.

I don't give BushCo. credit for being that conniving/cunning.

But no doubt there are those on the inside who are in prime position to profit from the instability -- "$150/barrel and loving it! WOOHOO!"

I think punchy said it simply and correctly; the ME is about to tear itself apart.

And OM puts blame squarely on the guilty party.

The Iran occupation, the Hamas victory, and all the other disparate interests (from Syria to Iran) will all form a "perfect geopolitical storm". It could be a mess, a global disaster:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=8557

The current admin started the ball rolling downhill and, even if they are not aware, it has become a juggernaut because of the fractured political and economic systems in the ME. Is the Bush admin capable of stopping the impending ME meltdown?
I doubt it.

But you asked if they want the coming mess?
I don't think they realised that it would get to this. They wanted a clean takeover of Iraq without wide-ranging and escalating altercations.
Why? Oil.
Here, and old but excellent piece:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/iraq/chemicalwarheads.htm

Unfortunately, all hell is about to break loose; and those that caused this are not going to admit their complicity, even to themselves.

Fox news asks the question could all out civil war in Iraq be a good thing?...
WTF?

Of course the question is what do we do if the Middle East starts coming apart? That is the question no one wants to talk about. Neither Democrats or Republicans seems to have a plan B for a future Middle East policy.

C--
The Dems have every right to not offer a solution just yet. This is 100% the WH's mess. They lied/manipulated to get us in--it's their responsibility to get us out. With all the collaterally policitical, social, and finacial damage resting squarely at their feet.

The Dems also helped get us into this mess. They capitulated in '03 in giving W the authority to attack Iraq. With our government infested with neocons and the cabal pulling W's strings, no telling where this mess will go. Unfortunately the bipartisan neocons are furthering the evils of our military industrial complex.

Good responses all. However, I don't think it's inconsistent to agree with almost all of the above AND think that a melt-down was an intentional or hoped for consequence. That FAUX news is raising the "is ME meltdown a good thing?" question is telling, methinks cozily breathed into the ears of FAUX by Mr. X.

I knew from the beginning that entering Iraq just about guaranteed civil war. Delicate relationships, coupled with potentially violent cultural and religious clashes, are only enhanced by American Godzilla diplomacy.

What does a meltdown do? It precipitates a phenomenon critical to this administration's MO: distraction.

Just imagine all the opportunities at this administration's disposal when they're out of the news.

Then let's keep the shenanigans of this criminal administration IN THE NEWS AND ON THE RADAR.

Obvoius Mendacity:

"George Bush broke Iraq. Now the broken mess spreads far and wide. Almost like that flesh eating bacteria, Bush's foreign policies infect, rot, and consume."

Yeah verily.

This is the deepest thing I've read on the net in a long time.

And yes... it nestles alongside some thoughts
that have been happening inside my own head.

To wit:

How does that flesh eating
bacteria infect you and I?

That's a tremendously important question.

No one is innured from Bush's
immoral decision to invade a
hapless and unhappening country.

Yeah verily... George Bush has shit up the planet.

But deeper and more personal is this question:

How has Bush's shitting
infected your sense
of joy and wonder of the world?

Think about that.

And then...
even more deeply think about this:

Howsoever Bush's mendacity had perturbed your
sense of justice and good will...

Imagine....
how his crime feels to those whose most
sacred sites are being blown to gold dust under
the very noses of invading troops
whose only job is to maintain security...

Imagine that!

Ya'all think they might be a little frothy?
A little foamy at the mouth?
A little caddywampus?
A little sociopathic?

George Bush is to the world...
Like a war criminal is to the Garden of Eden.

Fox news asks the question could all out civil war in Iraq be a good thing?...
WTF?

Never forget that Christian Ron Reagan had faith that giving WMD to both Iranians and Iraqis at the same time was a good thing.

I argued a long time ago that given that ethic... having Sunnis and Shites cutting each others throats is a good thing too.

It seems as if Fox's news has finally caught up to my comic book postulations...

Remarkable... they were only two years behind.

Kovevel, you hit it on the head.
Very scary..........but true.

Question to everyone: WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?

Punchy--
As much as I would like to see the current adminstration fix there own mess I think it's bigger than partisan domestic politics. Unfortunately someone has to be the adult. A real ME crisis have the potential for a global economic downturn or war if other countries start to intervene. A stable is a vital interest. Anyway it would take leadership and a longterm view something that is missing so far.

Punchy

You are not alone in your feelings and thoughts. See
http://newropeans-magazine.org

On another note...did anybody else pick up on Bush's phrase the other day, "my government"? As in 'my govt approved this..."

Punchy and Alma-

Abqaiq is quite isolated, making an attack on the distribution terminal especially difficult. To have made an attack that could not be kept out of the news is itself an indicator of the turmoil in the ME that is reflected in future oil prices. In fact, the present value of that anticipated price increase times the world reserves is a better indication of the damage inflicted than the actual physical damage. Folks putting money where there mouth is are betting that oil is relatively more expensive to bring to market than previously thought.

While the Fisk article cited by fiancetto is good anecdotal evidence of why we went to war (except for the Israeli-Palestine aspect, and the fact that war ensures unlimited power for the incumbents), the spin by this administration has been so flagrant and overbearing, that we forget Osama became our enemy when he got stiffed by both the US and Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war. His fight is against Saudi Arabia as much as against the US, although oil has so combined interests that until quite recently, SA, was, for all practical purposes, a US colony or protectorate.

The MAIN problem facing US citizens’ today stems back to the use of secrecy, especially as instigated by the cabal. It is now clear that this group has always operated continuously behind the scene, ever since the fall of Nixon (actually someone who did more to promote peace than he has been given credit for) allowed the cabal to rise to power. Let's not forget that Ford was APPOINTED, not elected to VP upon Agnew’s resignation, partly because of his willingness to shield and pardon those committing criminal acts of a political nature. George H. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Richard Pearle, and Paul Wolfowitz all came to power in this political vacuum. Worse, while secrecy and abuse has always been a staple of politics, never before have we had such an excess of funding for covert organizations as instigated by then CIA director George H.Bush. And never before had the NIE been challenged so directly by political operatives, under what is known as the B team, a modus operandi used to this day. Separation of intelligence for security purposes from intelligence for political or business purposes is a problem that has caused untold grief to the US, and is a problem it MUST solve if it is to remain a viable form of government. Who knows what US foreign policy REALLY is?

Secrecy has been sold to the American public as a necessary part of war. Unfortunately there is a kernel of truth to that. However, secrecy is also a means by which a minority can control a majority politically, as was first put into practice by Adolf Hitler. It is my contention, having watched the use of intelligence in this country, that secret intelligence and secret decision making (of which our energy policy is a prime example) contributes far more negatives than it does positives, both to economic well being as well as to security well being.

Thus I have no problem with funding efforts to "get the US side of the story" out in the ME news. What I take extreme issue with is the fact that such efforts are secret, not only from the American Public but also from the legislative and judicial branches of government. The organizations and funding for covert operations is so out of control that this shadow government has become the driving force in US foreign policy.

I assume the decision has already been made (pending completion of creating the correct political climate) to usurp Iranian oil as well, at least in the Khuzestan providence where the bulk of Iranian oil reserves are located. And controlling this piece of real estate has the advantage of finally securing both sides of the Str of Hormuz.

The present cabal sprang out of a twisting of Churchill's "Balance of Terror' proclamation after WWII. Wohlstetter morphed this into his famous RAND paper "The Delicate Balance of Terror" basically advocating that nuclear war not only is winnable (reminding us the USSR lost 20,000,000 in WWII, so let’s not get wobbly kneed over a few million), but also if we ever have a clear military advantage, the US must strike first and permanently defeat all foes. All the cabal actions stem from this policy perspective, their willingness to use "ALL MEANS NECESSARY" to achieve these aims, and that a dictatorship is the best (and only) form of government capable of achieving military objectives (policy by other means).

We do indeed face a formidable foe. And it is neither al Qaeda, nor Islamic extremists.

"Thus I have no problem with funding efforts to "get the US side of the story" out in the ME news."

How about the controlled efforts inside the US that distort the truth and manipulate public opinion of our own citizenry?

What can be done to overcome this formidable foe?

"Thus I have no problem with funding efforts to "get the US side of the story" out in the ME news."

I actually do. I don't believe it's necessary to fund efforts to "get the US side of the story out" in the ME or elsewhere.

As much as i like blaming Bush for things, I think the current situation in the Middle East is the end result of decades of bad policy.

Democratization is an idea we've not only not encouraged, but actively fought against. The move towards finally supporting was the right intention, it was the execution that was terrible.

Add to that failed monetary policies and terrible foreign relations outside the Middle East and we're too weakened to change direction in the Middle East if we wanted to.

This is a storm we're going to have to ride out and hope to hell all comes out well in the end.

http://www.ksgcitizen.org/media/paper223/news/2004/09/15/Features/Divinity.School.Rejects.Arab.Funding-889966.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.ksgcitizen.org

and the Bush administration wants to dupe the public with a straight face into believing that compromising our sovereignty by surrendering our ports to a foreign sovereign is just any old free trade deal? Please spread this article widely. The media are not doing their homework.

Steve,
This is OT, but you might want to check out
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/02/more_on_mora.html

I am reminded of your faith in the good citizens in the GOP by this article. How bad do things have to get before the GOP realizes that they need to impeach Bush, even if it means the destruction of their party?
Impeachment is the only remedy. In my opinion, you are doing harm by giving the illusion of a third option.. creating a space for moderate Republicans to defect without hurting the party.
I urge you to reconsider your approach on what may be the eve of a truly catastrophic conflict in Iraq. Three more years of Bush at the helm, or impeachment: those are the only two choices.

So marky, you want Dick Cheney as president?

A lesson I learned in marketing, it's not how good (or bad) your product is, it's how does your product compare to the alternatives.

I think the best alternative is to get a Democratic majority in the House or Senate. Then reasonable oversight might be returned to government.

Don,
Do I want Dick Cheney as President? Absolutely, yes, for two reasons. First of all, most of the important policy decisions have been made by Cheney, not Bush, including the most vital (and worst) decisions about Iraq. Cheney is almost an ex-constitutional figure, acting with powers that Bush has delegated to him, both formally and informally. I find the current situation profoundly undemocratic. Having Cheney as President would rectify that error.
The second reason I would prefer Cheney as President is that, unlike Bush, he is a personally detestable figure, with the charisma of a Hitler in Jerusalem. Were he President, the Republican policy machine would grind to a quick halt, in my opinion. This is the flip side of the first reason: with Bush as President, the public is deceived about the true nature of this administration---not so with Cheney.

Were Bush impeached, I doubt Cheney could assume office, because his health is clearly not adequate. In addition, I think Cheney should be impeached as well. Impeaching Bush is a necessary step to restore proper government, but not the only one.

Need to win back Democratic majority in House and/or Senate AND impeach.

marky,
I think there are two categories of argument with your idea.
One, "he is a personally detestable figure". Cheney is very well liked by the Republican base. The "flyover" states, as is such.

While impeachment might weaken the Republican base, I'd bet my money that it would mobilize the base instead and increase support in the next elections. The Democrats have been steadily losing their base through moves against independents like Howard and Paul, which is going to weaken them in the '06 elections. However, they've been gaining moderates which they might lose if they seem too partisan. The backlash might mean even more seats for Republicans in '06.

Two, you're making a lot of assumptions about Cheney taking office. But even if he didn't, you then have John Dennis Hastert or heaven forbid, Ted Stevens taking office.

In addition, your logic falls apart in saying that Cheney is co-regent but unable to assume the presidency, something you accuse him of already doing.

I've always thought that the people who don't like Bush don't like his administration, the people who like Bush like Bush personally. Because of this you'll have a real problem attacking Bush the person, and you'd need a clean sweep to get rid of Bush the government.

By having a Democratic House with subpoena power, you might re-establish Congressional oversight. Something much more valuable than playing musical chairs and putting the neocons officially in charge.

Don,
Cheney's approval rating has been below 20%, IIRC. Currently it hovers around 30%. He would not have sufficient support to govern with those numbers.
When I say he's not up to the job, I mean that his health is deteriorating---it has to be, given his heart failure. His public appearances are very rare; it's unlikely he could manage the regular schedule of appearances the Presidency requires. I disagree with you on a key point: that liking Bush is equivalent to liking his government. I think that fondness for Bush, personally, keeps his administration afloat in spite of the dissatisfaction the public feels with his policies. This is why removing him from office is so important.

A Dem. takeover in 2006 is unlikely, but obviously that would do the job.

The bottom line is that I don't see any remedy for 3 more years of Bush short of impeachment, and I think that the cost of him remaining in office will be very high.

Cheney isn't going to run for President. Or anything else for that matter. You're wasting your time even thinking about it. The repubs have to find both president and VP candidate for 2008.

I have no personal fondness for GWB, but I do think he has made mostly the right choices on foreign policy, which should be IMO his main focus. I would have liked Gore to have won in 2000 but Kerry was a dud, couldn't vote for him.

marky,
Bush is at 40% and congress at 30%, so I don't think Cheney's popularity would be an issue. I think we're both saying the same thing about Bush's popularity.

I'm guessing you're looking for another Ford, Rockefeller situation.

Allen, McCain, and Giuliani would probably be the main candidates put forward.

McCain would be the most popular at this point, but McCain is even more conservative than Bush, for all of his better PR work. Giuliani would have trouble carrying the west, where he's not the hero he is in the east. Allen would be a good candidate for the '12 election, but I don't think he'd get nominated straight into a Presidential position and I'm not sure he'd take VP.

So when all was through, who would you like to see in place?

"The Washington Note works hard to provide
constructive, serious critiques of Bush administration foreign policy
and attempts to avoid reckless
typecasting or tractionless hyperventilation."

Oh goody.

That's what I need to hear.

I mean...

First it was Plamegate that broke the camel's back.

Then it was Bolton...

Then it was English memo thingy...

Then it was the secret prisons...

Then it was Katrina...

Then it was the domestic spy program...

Then it was the Dubai port thing...

All of these things and heaps more...
Were all supposed to be the straw
that broke the camel's back...

Folks...
That's one fucking strong camel.

My question to you is:

Where does it get its juice to keep...
Going...
and going...
and going?