From the L.A. Times review of Woodward’s new book:

Later, with a Bush back in the White House, Bandar bullied the president into explicitly endorsing a two-state solution to the Israeli-conflict by threatening a total cutoff of Saudi support for U.S. policies. (Bush may never have played poker, but Bandar obviously has.) In another instance, the Saudi prince imperiously demanded — and, worse, obtained — two CIA officials to accompany him on a wild goose chase to Pakistan, where he hoped to kill Bin Laden. During a meeting in the Oval Office, according to Woodward, Bush personally thanked Bandar because the Saudis had flooded the world oil market and kept prices down in the run-up to the 2004 general election.

You don’t have to be Michael Moore to find all this unsettling. Equally disquieting, Woodward’s source for all this has to be Bandar or one of his intimates, acting at the Saudi’s behest. What that suggests is that, after decades of arduously cultivating the Bush family, one of the shrewdest operators on the world stage has written off George W. Bush. [...]

“State of Denial” is best read in tandem with Joan Didion’s assessment of Cheney in the current issue of the New York Review of Books. With that as background, one conclusion that suggests itself is that — from the beginning — Iraq really has been about Vietnam. Cheney and Rumsfeld have been the Iraq war’s principle advocates and architects. As Woodward now reveals, they’ve even introduced Henry Kissinger back into the equation, and he now is Bush’s most frequent nongovernmental advisor on foreign policy. Cheney and Rumsfeld were bright young men headed for the top during the Nixon and Ford administrations, both of whom thought of themselves, as others did, as future presidents. Though the disaster in Southeast Asia hardly ruined them, a certain stigma has attached itself ever since.

For them, the Iraq war, the whole wrenching debate over domestic spying, the detainees and unitary executive power is all about Vietnam. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kissinger all have been convinced for decades that the country drew all the wrong historical and governmental conclusions from Vietnam. The Reagan era intervention in Central America was a first attempt to overturn those conclusions, but it foundered on the arms-for-hostages scandal. Once George W. Bush — for a set of Freudian family issues too tedious to belabor — put himself in their clutches, he became the instrument of a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Kissinger attempt to abolish 30 years of history and their enduring resentment that their youthful exercise of power ended in failure, death and disaster.

So, here we are again.

I saw some wingnut moron on the local Sunday public interest show yesterday explaining how “paranoid” liberals had delusions of Bush manipulating gas prices close to the election. “It simply couldn’t happen. This is a very complex worldwide system,” the guy sniffed. “Asshole,” I said, and changed the channel.

I’ll tell you, now that I know how deep Kissinger is in this Iraq mess, it’s all very clear. No wonder it seems like Vietnam all over again… I remember wondering if he was working behind the scenes when he was nominated to head the 9/11 commission. Now we know.