In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.

Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.

One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:

“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.

Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.

Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:

[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. [...]

I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.

Indeed, ten years later, a mission accomplished for bin Laden.

(HT: Reddit user homeworld)

American and Iraqi officials are no longer optimistic that a long-term security agreement will soon be reached because “negotiations are complicated by political currents in both countries.” AFP reports that “large crowds of Shiites” gathered yesterday to denounce the security pact that the Iraqi government is debating:

“No, no to colonization! Out, out you occupier!” the crowd shouted in the centre of Sadr City where fierce battles raged in March and April between Shiite militants and US forces in which hundreds of people were killed. [...]

In the central town of Kufa, protesters chanted anti-US and anti-Israel slogans. “No to America! No to Israel! We reject signing the agreement with the occupation,” shouted devotees.

In the city of Karbala, an aide of revered Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged Baghdad to refrain from signing a deal that would compromise national interests.

“If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighboring countries,” said Sheikh Abdul al-Mahdi al-Karbalae.

President Bush will speak on the Republican convention’s opening night in St. Paul, MN. The New York Times reports that while details were still being worked out, a joint McCain/Bush appearance is “highly unlikely.” One GOP representative, however, said that a better plan would involve Bush staying home:

“I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention,” said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president “should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off.”

In response to some new Spanish-language television ad from the McCain campaign, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) put out this statement (in English, as best I can tell) that the Obama campaign is sending around:

There’s one thing Latinos have learned all too well after eight years of George Bush: politicians can say one thing, but it’s what they actually do that counts. Senator John McCain’s newest attack ad uses ‘friends’ to say one thing, but the facts show otherwise. If Senator McCain wants what’s best for our families, he would not have voted against increased funds for our children’s healthcare. And he would not have flip-flopped on his own legislation to firmly and fairly reform our broken immigration system. But he did. Senator Barack Obama has stood firmly with our families on all of these crucial issues. He did not flip-flop like Senator McCain. Bottom line: what’s best for America and Latino families is a leader who won’t flip-flop when it counts most.

I think that there’s an important insight lurking amidst this campaign rhetoric, namely that I think the press and politicians often overstate the significance of the immigration issue to Hispanic politics. US politics mostly operates along a “culture war” dynamic with racial, ethnic, or religious blocs voting in highly divergent matters and this has long been the case. So as the Latino share of the vote increases, there’s a tendency to seek out the key hot button issue for Latino voters and the view is that it must be immigration. McCain has (before flip-flopping and saying he would vote against his own bill) been a leader on pro-immigration reforms, ergo McCain should be able to appeal to Hispanic voters by emphasizing that fact.

If you look at it in detail, though, the Hispanic electorate mostly seems to vote the way Thomas Frank suggests everyone should in What’s the Matter With Kansas — poorer Hispanics vote Democratic, richer ones vote Republican, and social and cultural issues just don’t seem to play very much. Because Hispanics are poorer-than-average this leads to a big pro-Democratic tilt. I think it’s clear that Republicans can hurt themselves with the immigration issue by acting like racist demagogues but the GOP’s primary problem with this voting group really is things like S-CHIP rather than a lack of sufficient immigration-related pandering.