“Saudi Arabia's oil minister on Sunday will address reports that the world's largest oil-producing country is set to raise production by about 500,000 barrels per day,” reported MSNBC.

If one bothers to read sundry news accounts, and simply connect the dots, an unsettling picture emerges.
 
The Press Trust of India recently reported, “Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil producer, is planning to invest USD 80 billion to increase its oil output to 12.5 million barrels per day (bpd) and expand its refining capacity by 43 per cent to six million bpd within the next few years.”

Thanks to American generosity, and with $80 billion in liquidity, Saudi Arabia can certainly afford to shop for things it has always wanted.

That might explain The Guardian’s recent report, entitled "Saudis consider nuclear bomb," which stated in part: “Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons….”

Yes, that’s the same Saudi Arabia which provided 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. Yes, that’s the same Saudi Arabia, who when the Jersey Girls asked Henry Kissinger if he had any Saudi clients with the last name Bin Laden, that he decided to resign from his recent appointment to head the 9/11 Commission.

Of course, leave it to a Washington “think”tank to comfort us with platitudes about how difficult it will be for Saudi Arabia to realize its ambitions:

David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington thinktank, said he doubted whether the Saudis would try to build a nuclear bomb, preferring instead to try to buy a nuclear warhead. They would be the first of the world's eight or nine nuclear powers to have bought rather than built the bomb….

Mr Albright said the Saudis would face a long haul if they were determined to acquire nuclear weapons. He doubted whether anyone would sell.

Psssssssst……… Saudi Arabia, here's a tip: contact certain members of the U.S. State Department, and they’ll take care of you really well. After all, they got your captured hijackers out of the country quite nicely, before they could "spill the beans."

Meanwhile, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) offered a seemingly scathing op-ed piece recently in the Wall Street Journal, asking “Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes?”

Claimed Markey:

Last month, while the American people were becoming the personal ATMs of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Saudi Arabia signing away an even more valuable gift: nuclear technology. In a ceremony little-noticed in this country, Ms. Rice volunteered the U.S. to assist Saudi Arabia in developing nuclear reactors, training nuclear engineers, and constructing nuclear infrastructure. While oil breaks records at $130 per barrel or more, the American consumer is footing the bill for Saudi Arabia's nuclear ambitions.

Markey, of course, didn’t mention in his op-ed piece, that in February 2008, he introduced H.R. 39, which would make “permanent” the restrictions against obtaining vitally needed Alaskan oil.

That, finally, brings us to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s different opinion about our current energy situation. She noted:

Our most valuable untapped resource is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, which is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This remote frozen tundra could be drilled with minimal impact on surrounding life. ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area drilled would be roughly the size of Dallas/Love Field Airport.

In 1995, the Republican Congress passed legislation to open ANWR for energy production. But President Clinton vetoed our bill. If he had signed it, America would now be producing an additional 1 million barrels a day, almost enough oil to replace all of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia....

Federal laws also prevent us from exploiting one trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah — an amazing amount that is three times what Saudi Arabia has in reserve.

The above leaves me asking myself many questions, but for now, I’ll simply settle for “and our troops are in Iraq because....”