In retrospect, Dr. Nayyer Ali was not far off the mark:
**(And if the people of the US are not reaping the benefit, who IS? )**
"By Dr. Nayyer Ali
December 13, 2002
Iraq and Oil
Ignore everything that is going on with the weapons inspectors. Bush will strike Saddam in the first three months of 2003 and the US will find itself occupying Iraq. The inspections game is being played out of a desire to appease the rest of the world by creating at least an impression of showing deference to the UN Security Council, but the US will not be constrained by anything the weapons inspectors find or don¹t find.
Iraq is a vast country, and a few weapons inspectors cannot possibly thoroughly inspect the place, even if they had years. The vast majority of the finds that the inspectors had in the early and middle 1990s were based on tips and information gathered from high-ranking Iraqi defectors. Very little was found by driving around the country and looking in random buildings of interest. Which is why Saddam is willing to comply with the current inspection regime and also why the US has no faith in it.
Given the coming war, there is much confusion as to why the US has decided to pursue it. The reasons are complex, but one that is put forth by many critics of US policy is of course oil. Iraq has oil reserves of 113 billion barrels, which is the second largest reserve in the world, and almost half of the leader, Saudi Arabia. Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq¹s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day.
Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.
The benefit to the American economy will be 75 billion dollars, which is not huge, but is certainly significant. Lower global oil prices will lead to faster growth in most developed and developing nations, which will benefit American exporters selling to these economies.
Some have argued that the US wants to take over the oil fields. Actually, that is of little value to the American economy. Even if the US simply confiscated all of Iraq’s oil and sold it, it would only add about 20 billion dollars to the US treasury each year. In addition, the US would have to pay for maintenance and investment in the fields, and provide security.
20 billion dollars is a lot of money, but given that the US government spending is over 150 times greater than that, and the entire US economy is 500 times larger, the 20 billion is just pocket change. In the last twelve months, in which the economy has been growing slowly, the US still added over 300 billion dollars to its economy. So the idea that the US is going to war to literally grab barrels of crude does not withstand analysis.
On the flip side, the war itself is projected to cost 50-100 billion dollars. In addition the occupation after the war will take at least 50,000 peacekeepers, each of which cost 100,000 dollars to maintain per year, which adds up to 5 billion dollars per year. And that is if everything goes without a hitch. The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Monday, April 28, 2003
THEY ALL WANT A PIECE OF THE "CAKE"
Indian companies eye Iraqi oil contracts
Excerpt:
"NEW DELHI, Apr 27: Indian industry is vying for a pie in the billions of dollars worth of Iraqi oil industry reconstruction cake by taking sub-contracts for refinery revamp and pipeline construction.
E&P Company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Oil Refiner Indian Oil, Engineering Consultancy Firm Engineers India Ltd, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and construction major Larsen and Toubro together with help from Ministry of External Affairs are vying for sub-contracts from the main contracts which are likely to be for US and British firms."
"Saddam’s Government has, since the late 1990s, signed production sharing or development agreements with oil companies from Russia, France, China, Romania, Vietnam, Syria and Turkey for the rehabilitation and development of vast swathes of its upstream oil wealth. Given the UN embargo, the companies have not acted on the contracts.
But in recent weeks, the US has signalled that its military-led interim authority will be the dispenser of oil field contracts. It already has awarded a repair and restoration deal, without competitive bids, with the Kellogg, Brown & Root unit of oil field services major Halliburton. That is tentatively estimated at up to 7 billion dollars in revenues for Halliburton or its sub-contractors, but might not necessarily interfere with the other international PSCS.
Iraqi opposition figures also have made little secret of their desire to void the contracts from the Saddam era and sign new upstream deals.
Ramachandran said the US military is expected to solicit competitive bids in the next two months to modernise and update Iraqi’s oil infrastructure.
Indian companies eye Iraqi oil contracts
Excerpt:
"NEW DELHI, Apr 27: Indian industry is vying for a pie in the billions of dollars worth of Iraqi oil industry reconstruction cake by taking sub-contracts for refinery revamp and pipeline construction.
E&P Company Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Oil Refiner Indian Oil, Engineering Consultancy Firm Engineers India Ltd, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd and construction major Larsen and Toubro together with help from Ministry of External Affairs are vying for sub-contracts from the main contracts which are likely to be for US and British firms."
"Saddam’s Government has, since the late 1990s, signed production sharing or development agreements with oil companies from Russia, France, China, Romania, Vietnam, Syria and Turkey for the rehabilitation and development of vast swathes of its upstream oil wealth. Given the UN embargo, the companies have not acted on the contracts.
But in recent weeks, the US has signalled that its military-led interim authority will be the dispenser of oil field contracts. It already has awarded a repair and restoration deal, without competitive bids, with the Kellogg, Brown & Root unit of oil field services major Halliburton. That is tentatively estimated at up to 7 billion dollars in revenues for Halliburton or its sub-contractors, but might not necessarily interfere with the other international PSCS.
Iraqi opposition figures also have made little secret of their desire to void the contracts from the Saddam era and sign new upstream deals.
Ramachandran said the US military is expected to solicit competitive bids in the next two months to modernise and update Iraqi’s oil infrastructure.
IF TURKEY DOES IT, IT'S OK. BUT IF SYRIA TRIES IT........
Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline boost oil revenue
WASHINGTON, Feb 19: The newly opened Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline enabled Baghdad to get a sum of three million dollars per day for the last three months, dramatically boosting the oil revenue it gets outside the UN sanction, American media reports has said.
The United States proposed to take up this issue when its Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Damascus next week as part of his week long trip to the Middle East.
Oil industry analysts quoted by the Washington Post said the 552 mile pipeline which connects Iraq with Syria’s mediterranean port of Banias has been receiving 120,000 to 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day since it reopened in November last year. The latest turn over in the pipeline is estimated at 200,000 barrels a day.
Iraq is offering Syria at a sharply discounted price of 15 dollars a barrel nearly fifty per cent of the market cost. This oil sale yields around three million dollars a day for Iraq.
US officials have taken up this issue with their Syrian counterparts about the pipeline which was closed nearly nineteen years ago during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush administration is encouraging Syria to bring the oil sale through the pipeline into conformity with the sanctions. The revenue accrued through the sale should be deposited in the UN account for purchase of food and medicines for the Iraqi people.
The newspaper said Syria is not the only ‘offender’ as about 150,000 barrels a day of oil and diesel fuel are being smuggled from northern Iraq into Turkey aboard hundreds of trucks that ply in the border. Since Turkey provides a crucial airbase used by the American aircraft patrolling over Iraq, US officials are reluctant to take up the issue with Ankara to crack down on the lucratived trade.
The US analysts said Baghad has been asking petroleum companies to pay 25 to 30 cents per barrel directly to Iraqi Government coffers, bypassing the United Nations oil for food account and giving Saddam Hussein revenue he could spend without international supervision. The UN account provides for part of the money to be transferred to Kuwait for reparations for damage done during the Iraqi invasion of the country in 1990. (UNI)
Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline boost oil revenue
WASHINGTON, Feb 19: The newly opened Iraqi-Syrian oil pipeline enabled Baghdad to get a sum of three million dollars per day for the last three months, dramatically boosting the oil revenue it gets outside the UN sanction, American media reports has said.
The United States proposed to take up this issue when its Secretary of State Colin Powell visits Damascus next week as part of his week long trip to the Middle East.
Oil industry analysts quoted by the Washington Post said the 552 mile pipeline which connects Iraq with Syria’s mediterranean port of Banias has been receiving 120,000 to 150,000 barrels of crude oil a day since it reopened in November last year. The latest turn over in the pipeline is estimated at 200,000 barrels a day.
Iraq is offering Syria at a sharply discounted price of 15 dollars a barrel nearly fifty per cent of the market cost. This oil sale yields around three million dollars a day for Iraq.
US officials have taken up this issue with their Syrian counterparts about the pipeline which was closed nearly nineteen years ago during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush administration is encouraging Syria to bring the oil sale through the pipeline into conformity with the sanctions. The revenue accrued through the sale should be deposited in the UN account for purchase of food and medicines for the Iraqi people.
The newspaper said Syria is not the only ‘offender’ as about 150,000 barrels a day of oil and diesel fuel are being smuggled from northern Iraq into Turkey aboard hundreds of trucks that ply in the border. Since Turkey provides a crucial airbase used by the American aircraft patrolling over Iraq, US officials are reluctant to take up the issue with Ankara to crack down on the lucratived trade.
The US analysts said Baghad has been asking petroleum companies to pay 25 to 30 cents per barrel directly to Iraqi Government coffers, bypassing the United Nations oil for food account and giving Saddam Hussein revenue he could spend without international supervision. The UN account provides for part of the money to be transferred to Kuwait for reparations for damage done during the Iraqi invasion of the country in 1990. (UNI)
Today's YukYuk from the land of Maybe/Maybe NOT
I've learned (as rumor only, mind you) that this was overheard at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Apr. 26, 2003:
Al Franken: "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?"
Paul Wolfowitz: " **** you."
Which makes me think:
*Tsk Tsk* ...no swearin' now, Paul...get your people on the phone and order up some more cruise missiles and
some of that Crusader artillery for our next magical militaristery tour. Carlyle needs you, boy. Leave no defense contracter behind!
This was REALLY said by Mr Wolfowitz:
"I think the right goal is to move as quickly as we can to a government that is, if I can paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, of the Iraqis, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis." -- Paul Wolfowitz, April 6
...which is a tad puzzling when you hear his administration-mate saying:
"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, April 24
I mean...what if the Iraqi people decide the clerics are "for them...by them....of them"?
Who made Rumsfeld final judge of Iraqi hearts and minds?
And for Pete's sake, who made Wolfowitz an Abe Lincoln already?? *(gag)*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've learned (as rumor only, mind you) that this was overheard at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Apr. 26, 2003:
Al Franken: "Clinton's military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?"
Paul Wolfowitz: " **** you."
Which makes me think:
*Tsk Tsk* ...no swearin' now, Paul...get your people on the phone and order up some more cruise missiles and
some of that Crusader artillery for our next magical militaristery tour. Carlyle needs you, boy. Leave no defense contracter behind!
This was REALLY said by Mr Wolfowitz:
"I think the right goal is to move as quickly as we can to a government that is, if I can paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, of the Iraqis, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis." -- Paul Wolfowitz, April 6
...which is a tad puzzling when you hear his administration-mate saying:
"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, April 24
I mean...what if the Iraqi people decide the clerics are "for them...by them....of them"?
Who made Rumsfeld final judge of Iraqi hearts and minds?
And for Pete's sake, who made Wolfowitz an Abe Lincoln already?? *(gag)*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush has called for the removal of UN embargo on Iraq, and let's face it, it is not only to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people but also to permit U.S. oil companies to move into a country with the world's third largest oil reserves! Of course, there can be no trade with Iraq for oil until UN sanctions are lifted. (Oh--Bush hates that nasty UN!)
See how easy it is?
All it took was a great "liberation" for Bush and his family and his corporate benefactor/benefactees to be in the money as soon as those sanctions disappear.
Remember, Poppy's Carlyle Group has already done right well for themselves as a result of this "great liberation", too.
What have YOU gained, American people?
Not a friggen thing except a new allocation in your tax-debt for rebuilding the mess Bush made in that nation for his own self-interest and that of his corporate friends.
Is all this "liberation" altruism?
Or could it be self-interest?
I say it's self-interest..without reservation.
Do you believe that Russian, French and Germans are squabbling about lifting sanctions simply because they
"hate" the US? If so, go bury yourself back under those turnips in the back of the turnip truck. It's ALL about self-interest, babe.
And you can bet..somewhere along the line, there will be concessions made to Russia, France and Germany in order for those sanctions to be lifted..even in the face of the fact that those three countries believed this war was illegal.
Money cures just about anything.
And when we "liberated" Iraq....that's when the American oil companies laid their hands on Iraq. That's when the real looting began.
See how easy it is?
All it took was a great "liberation" for Bush and his family and his corporate benefactor/benefactees to be in the money as soon as those sanctions disappear.
Remember, Poppy's Carlyle Group has already done right well for themselves as a result of this "great liberation", too.
What have YOU gained, American people?
Not a friggen thing except a new allocation in your tax-debt for rebuilding the mess Bush made in that nation for his own self-interest and that of his corporate friends.
Is all this "liberation" altruism?
Or could it be self-interest?
I say it's self-interest..without reservation.
Do you believe that Russian, French and Germans are squabbling about lifting sanctions simply because they
"hate" the US? If so, go bury yourself back under those turnips in the back of the turnip truck. It's ALL about self-interest, babe.
And you can bet..somewhere along the line, there will be concessions made to Russia, France and Germany in order for those sanctions to be lifted..even in the face of the fact that those three countries believed this war was illegal.
Money cures just about anything.
And when we "liberated" Iraq....that's when the American oil companies laid their hands on Iraq. That's when the real looting began.
THE WAR HAPPENED WHILE I WAS ON VACATION EARLIER THIS MONTH
WHILE I WAS AWAY.......
While I was away.... by Iddybud
So much to talk about.
Such as how a quickie end to sanctions on Iraq are worth billions to Bush..
and how it would give U.S. oil companies control over Iraq oil.
Or how the UN (that Bushie so hates) condemns "incredible" numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq..
most killed by U.S. bombs and rockets.
Or how the U.S. controls only a square mile of Baghdad at present while
looters are now turning to private homes instead of museums.
Or how Bush is under pressure to prove the existence of significant traces of Iraqi WMD...(substantially
threat-posing substances to Americans since this was about our security)..
while suspicion is also growing because the UN weapons inspectors that Bushie hates so much are being kept out.
Or how the U.S. is rushing to install a puppet Iraqi government to rival
the Punch and Judy show.
A U.S.-favored "Iraqi National Congress" has little to do with Iraq, doncha know.
Or how Hans Blix claims the U.S. wanted UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq..while U.S. intelligence services also faked WMD "evidence" ..even back then. (No one wanted to listen to Ritter--and Bushie tried to destroy Ritter..par for the course...the low-sinking Bushie's even trying to destroy fellow-Republicans like Sen Voinivich).
Or how Bushie's planning to appoint an arms merchant as viceroy of Baghdad..
This retired Army general was a key player in Israeli weapon deployment, doncha know.
Or about the new Iraq leadership picked by U.S...definitely a motley crew ..and some want to bring back the old monarchy!!
How about that Arab world all abuzz with rumors of a Bush - Saddam deal on this war... some conspiracy theorists believe a deal was struck to save Saddam...hmmm.....thry say the Saudis may have brokered a deal for quick Iraqi surrender...and the speedy fall of Baghdad has Arab media buzzing with rumors!!
Then there was that brutal murder of that cleric--which shows Iraqi ethnic tensions are rather high..yes?
More religious violence is predicted in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.
And dagnabbit, there's no grateful cheering over liberation at Baghdad hospitals...where doctors are performing operations without full anaesthesia! What you imagine to be cheers are actually howls of friggen pain.
Then there's life in Iraq "after Saddam": carpetbaggers everywhere!
Religious rivals, ex-pats, zany locals all jockeying for political power! Woot!
Did we expect the fall of Saddam to deepens the Russia-U.S. rift?
Who was forced to deny rumors that their Baghdad embassy was hiding Saddam?
Coudl it be that the anarchy is keeping aid-workers from entering Iraq? While aid for food, water, medical system collapses??
And just how hard is it to hide a
6-foot, 4-inch diabetic Arab with a $25 million bounty on his head? Pretty easy, it turns out -- if you know the right people!!!
What??? The U.S. moves to block an emergency UN war session?
Who woulda thunk it???
Threatening diplomats not to vote for General Assembly session on Iraq? The UN-hating Bushie? Nah! Couldn't be!
How about those media groups condemning the U.S.- killing of reporters in Iraq?
Do we dare ask questions about non-"embedded" journalists killed by U.S. military fire?
What happens when an investigation of possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq begins? Gathering data to present to International Criminal Court, are they? The bastards!
Those fragile money markets watch Iraq with unease...the entire global economy is in flux..and it isn't SARS!
Bush wants to make it clear to the much-hated UN: IRAQ BELONGS TO US!!!
Hands off..we stomped on 'em..back off! The Pentagon will be calling the shots in Iraq, even in defiance of other bureaucracies that, in contrast to the Defense Department, have real experts on Iraqi politics, history, and culture who could prove helpful in carrying out an occupation. "You can call this another aspect of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's pre-emption strategy," said one administration official. "You can call this a coup d'etat." But right-wing hawks in the Bush administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, want the United Nations to provide the clean-up crew to tidy up the war-devastated country, feed the hungry, and care for the wounded and the dying.
Have I mentioned Bush is all set to snub the UN (whom he hates) for a meaningful role in postwar Iraq??
Did you hear Bush say to Blair: "Nopers, no lead role for the UN in Iraq, Tony baby, 'cuzzin' I hates 'em"?
Have you noticed the Iraq "liberation" looks more like "Coup d'Etat"?
So...will the UN become another League Of Nations because Bush and the chickenhawks hate the UN??
There are some unsettling comparisons between Iraq and events of 1936.
Here's some more stuff to talk about.... (why aren't we talking about it???)
U.S. hopes a Europe split is forever, some experts say.. a dispute over Iraq war is just one example of EU-American differences and the Bush admin couldn't be happier with this thought.
Watch them exacerbate it in days to come.
The disgrace and failure of George W. Bush is that he lied, he bribed, he forged and, finally, he tried spying
in order to get his war on.
Bush hawks are now moving the crosshairs to Syria..the exact-same neo-con chickenhawk crowd that fomented attack on Iraq is hoping for the same with Syria...bet your britches on it.
No matter how Fox tries to apple-pie the whole deal, Arabs are seeing "occupation," not "liberation" of Iraq... comparisons are being made to Soviet efforts to colonize Afghanistan.
Arab Youth are still heading towards Iraq to be "Freedom Martyrs"....and the
Iraq invasion has spurred feelings of Arab nationalism. DOH...Who woulda thunkit?
Bush's short-span war, in reality, may span generations, kids....
Religious issues on both sides have made this anything BUT a conventional war.
We need to expect a long-haul stay in Iraq. Even right-wing thinktanks behind the Iraq invasion want no early fixation on exit strategies. Take off the seatbelts, ye anti-nation-builders. Dig deep into your tax-paying pockets. Iraqis need your
hard-earned dough-re-mi while Bechtel and other corporations make a lot of those policy-makers rich, rich and more rich!
What did Bush delete from an Iraq inspector's Report?
There are a missing 8000-pages..which is said to probably link U.S. companies to Iraq weapons. Who woulda thunkit?
Postwar Iraq profiteering has begun.
Over $1.5 billion in Iraq contracts have been offered to private U.S. companies. Thanks, liberators!
And the U.S. will reap an oil windfall now that Saddam's been oustered (for all intents and purposes).
Oil had practically everything to do with it..contrary to Fox-ular beliefs.
I'm confident that history will show that Iraq and the Arab world has been RADICALIZED by the attack on Iraq.
I fully believe the government of Iran is expecting to war with the US soon.
North Korea, BECAUSE of the war on Iraq, has learned a lesson. To desire a speedy race to nuclear power so we cannot do the same to them. It may be an unreasonable assumption on their part, but this is only part of what Bush's poor foreign policy has caused.
So much more to say...so little time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHILE I WAS AWAY.......
While I was away.... by Iddybud
So much to talk about.
Such as how a quickie end to sanctions on Iraq are worth billions to Bush..
and how it would give U.S. oil companies control over Iraq oil.
Or how the UN (that Bushie so hates) condemns "incredible" numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq..
most killed by U.S. bombs and rockets.
Or how the U.S. controls only a square mile of Baghdad at present while
looters are now turning to private homes instead of museums.
Or how Bush is under pressure to prove the existence of significant traces of Iraqi WMD...(substantially
threat-posing substances to Americans since this was about our security)..
while suspicion is also growing because the UN weapons inspectors that Bushie hates so much are being kept out.
Or how the U.S. is rushing to install a puppet Iraqi government to rival
the Punch and Judy show.
A U.S.-favored "Iraqi National Congress" has little to do with Iraq, doncha know.
Or how Hans Blix claims the U.S. wanted UN inspection teams to spy on Iraq..while U.S. intelligence services also faked WMD "evidence" ..even back then. (No one wanted to listen to Ritter--and Bushie tried to destroy Ritter..par for the course...the low-sinking Bushie's even trying to destroy fellow-Republicans like Sen Voinivich).
Or how Bushie's planning to appoint an arms merchant as viceroy of Baghdad..
This retired Army general was a key player in Israeli weapon deployment, doncha know.
Or about the new Iraq leadership picked by U.S...definitely a motley crew ..and some want to bring back the old monarchy!!
How about that Arab world all abuzz with rumors of a Bush - Saddam deal on this war... some conspiracy theorists believe a deal was struck to save Saddam...hmmm.....thry say the Saudis may have brokered a deal for quick Iraqi surrender...and the speedy fall of Baghdad has Arab media buzzing with rumors!!
Then there was that brutal murder of that cleric--which shows Iraqi ethnic tensions are rather high..yes?
More religious violence is predicted in the wake of Saddam's overthrow.
And dagnabbit, there's no grateful cheering over liberation at Baghdad hospitals...where doctors are performing operations without full anaesthesia! What you imagine to be cheers are actually howls of friggen pain.
Then there's life in Iraq "after Saddam": carpetbaggers everywhere!
Religious rivals, ex-pats, zany locals all jockeying for political power! Woot!
Did we expect the fall of Saddam to deepens the Russia-U.S. rift?
Who was forced to deny rumors that their Baghdad embassy was hiding Saddam?
Coudl it be that the anarchy is keeping aid-workers from entering Iraq? While aid for food, water, medical system collapses??
And just how hard is it to hide a
6-foot, 4-inch diabetic Arab with a $25 million bounty on his head? Pretty easy, it turns out -- if you know the right people!!!
What??? The U.S. moves to block an emergency UN war session?
Who woulda thunk it???
Threatening diplomats not to vote for General Assembly session on Iraq? The UN-hating Bushie? Nah! Couldn't be!
How about those media groups condemning the U.S.- killing of reporters in Iraq?
Do we dare ask questions about non-"embedded" journalists killed by U.S. military fire?
What happens when an investigation of possible U.S. war crimes in Iraq begins? Gathering data to present to International Criminal Court, are they? The bastards!
Those fragile money markets watch Iraq with unease...the entire global economy is in flux..and it isn't SARS!
Bush wants to make it clear to the much-hated UN: IRAQ BELONGS TO US!!!
Hands off..we stomped on 'em..back off! The Pentagon will be calling the shots in Iraq, even in defiance of other bureaucracies that, in contrast to the Defense Department, have real experts on Iraqi politics, history, and culture who could prove helpful in carrying out an occupation. "You can call this another aspect of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's pre-emption strategy," said one administration official. "You can call this a coup d'etat." But right-wing hawks in the Bush administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, want the United Nations to provide the clean-up crew to tidy up the war-devastated country, feed the hungry, and care for the wounded and the dying.
Have I mentioned Bush is all set to snub the UN (whom he hates) for a meaningful role in postwar Iraq??
Did you hear Bush say to Blair: "Nopers, no lead role for the UN in Iraq, Tony baby, 'cuzzin' I hates 'em"?
Have you noticed the Iraq "liberation" looks more like "Coup d'Etat"?
So...will the UN become another League Of Nations because Bush and the chickenhawks hate the UN??
There are some unsettling comparisons between Iraq and events of 1936.
Here's some more stuff to talk about.... (why aren't we talking about it???)
U.S. hopes a Europe split is forever, some experts say.. a dispute over Iraq war is just one example of EU-American differences and the Bush admin couldn't be happier with this thought.
Watch them exacerbate it in days to come.
The disgrace and failure of George W. Bush is that he lied, he bribed, he forged and, finally, he tried spying
in order to get his war on.
Bush hawks are now moving the crosshairs to Syria..the exact-same neo-con chickenhawk crowd that fomented attack on Iraq is hoping for the same with Syria...bet your britches on it.
No matter how Fox tries to apple-pie the whole deal, Arabs are seeing "occupation," not "liberation" of Iraq... comparisons are being made to Soviet efforts to colonize Afghanistan.
Arab Youth are still heading towards Iraq to be "Freedom Martyrs"....and the
Iraq invasion has spurred feelings of Arab nationalism. DOH...Who woulda thunkit?
Bush's short-span war, in reality, may span generations, kids....
Religious issues on both sides have made this anything BUT a conventional war.
We need to expect a long-haul stay in Iraq. Even right-wing thinktanks behind the Iraq invasion want no early fixation on exit strategies. Take off the seatbelts, ye anti-nation-builders. Dig deep into your tax-paying pockets. Iraqis need your
hard-earned dough-re-mi while Bechtel and other corporations make a lot of those policy-makers rich, rich and more rich!
What did Bush delete from an Iraq inspector's Report?
There are a missing 8000-pages..which is said to probably link U.S. companies to Iraq weapons. Who woulda thunkit?
Postwar Iraq profiteering has begun.
Over $1.5 billion in Iraq contracts have been offered to private U.S. companies. Thanks, liberators!
And the U.S. will reap an oil windfall now that Saddam's been oustered (for all intents and purposes).
Oil had practically everything to do with it..contrary to Fox-ular beliefs.
I'm confident that history will show that Iraq and the Arab world has been RADICALIZED by the attack on Iraq.
I fully believe the government of Iran is expecting to war with the US soon.
North Korea, BECAUSE of the war on Iraq, has learned a lesson. To desire a speedy race to nuclear power so we cannot do the same to them. It may be an unreasonable assumption on their part, but this is only part of what Bush's poor foreign policy has caused.
So much more to say...so little time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, April 26, 2003
A MUST-READ!
The Dark Night Of The American Soul
by Joseph R. Stromberg
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg53.html
The Dark Night Of The American Soul
by Joseph R. Stromberg
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg53.html
FOR THE MANY PRO-IRAQ-WAR CONS WHO ARE NOW TELLING ME TO "SHUT UP" and "CRY UNCLE" BECAUSE I "LOST"
This war isn't over
by Jim Wallis
EXCERPT:
"Now that the war was such a "success," we are left with a number of problems. It appears the Bush administration is choosing an American military occupation of Iraq instead of an internationally supported U.N. lead in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Already we see street demonstrations against that occupation. So far, the U.S. military hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and The Washington Post reported this week that administration officials are becoming less confident about doing so. Whoops. The imminent threat of those weapons was a central justification for the war.
They also haven't yet found Saddam Hussein. There are speculations now that he and his Baath Party and Republican Guard didn't put up a fight for Baghdad because they decided to disappear in order to live to fight another day, perhaps in an eventual guerrilla war against the American occupiers. That would certainly be a horrible prospect for everybody. And the triumphant optimism of the administration's leading warriors about installing a pro-American democracy in Iraq that would transform the Middle East seems to fade with each passing day. We're also finally adding up the few thousand civilian casualties and seeing their human faces, along with the many more dead Iraqi soldiers - a lot of whom were just young kids conscripted by a dictator. More than 100 American families also are mourning the loss of a loved one. And the disastrous consequences of the war in Iraq for domestic needs in America - where the poor are also becoming war casualties - is a subject worth another whole column."
This war isn't over
by Jim Wallis
EXCERPT:
"Now that the war was such a "success," we are left with a number of problems. It appears the Bush administration is choosing an American military occupation of Iraq instead of an internationally supported U.N. lead in humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Already we see street demonstrations against that occupation. So far, the U.S. military hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and The Washington Post reported this week that administration officials are becoming less confident about doing so. Whoops. The imminent threat of those weapons was a central justification for the war.
They also haven't yet found Saddam Hussein. There are speculations now that he and his Baath Party and Republican Guard didn't put up a fight for Baghdad because they decided to disappear in order to live to fight another day, perhaps in an eventual guerrilla war against the American occupiers. That would certainly be a horrible prospect for everybody. And the triumphant optimism of the administration's leading warriors about installing a pro-American democracy in Iraq that would transform the Middle East seems to fade with each passing day. We're also finally adding up the few thousand civilian casualties and seeing their human faces, along with the many more dead Iraqi soldiers - a lot of whom were just young kids conscripted by a dictator. More than 100 American families also are mourning the loss of a loved one. And the disastrous consequences of the war in Iraq for domestic needs in America - where the poor are also becoming war casualties - is a subject worth another whole column."
War and peace and God Rev. Stanley will have devil of a time convincing Lord battle is holy
BY JOHN SUGG
When I was 8-years-old, living in Orlando, my mom took me every night for a week to a Billy Graham crusade. Forty-some years later, I remember it vividly -- the flowers, the hymns, the dusty concrete smell of a large municipal auditorium, even the detestable yellow shirt Mom made me wear because it was my "finest."
Religion, I would conclude many years later, is largely a matter of geography. Had I been born in Bombay, I'd likely be Hindu. Egypt or Indonesia, and I'd be praying to Allah. If I called many parts of Asia home, Gotama would be my Main Man. It gets a little cramped in the Middle East, where your chances of being born Jew, Christian or Muslim are defined by feet and inches as opposed to continents. Nonetheless, "where" is quite likely the major "what" with faith.
Unlike many people -- for example, the Rev. Charles Stanley, a gentleman we'll come back to -- I don't claim to speak for the Deity. So I don't know why we have all of these religions, each anchored to a different part of the globe. My personal conclusion is that God truly is great and infinitely imaginative -- and He (and/or She) demonstrates this by showing there are many, many ways to come to Him (and/or Her).
Whatever, it was my lot to be from the South, in the United States, continent of North America. That meant, religionwise, it was almost inevitable I would be raised a Southern Baptist, which makes it not at all surprising that I was sitting at the Billy Graham revival.
On the fourth night of the crusade, as the choir sang "Just As I Am" and with my mother rapturously beaming approval, I marched forward, accepted Jesus as my savior and grabbed Graham's hand (I can still see the blue suit he was wearing). I didn't want to let go. I later had my soul cleansed in the blood of the Lamb, via baptism, and despite my age, I made a perfect score on a Graham correspondence course.
By the time I was 14, I was on my way to becoming apostate. Still, I believed much of what I learned in Sunday school -- including the bit about whether your faith's foundations were rock or sand. I became a committed Civil Rights activist in my teens, and when I found out that Southern Baptists had, in 1845, split from the denomination because they believed God approved of slavery, and that many in the church had been founders and leaders of the Klan, I decided to look elsewhere for a spiritual home. I felt the church's foundations were rooted in sludge -- but I don't deny the goodness and faith of most of the 16 million Southern Baptists (including Mom).
I never forgot the Rev. Graham, and his resonant voice, which seemed able to move the world and simultaneously touch the heart of a little boy. Even when he became pals with Richard Nixon, even (much later) when it was revealed that the preacher and the president indulged in anti-Semitic banter, I was and am awed by Graham's majesty.
But not his son Franklin's. Or his son's pals -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and our own Charles Stanley.
George Bush had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq that he could rally the nation around. So, he scammed America. If there were weapons of mass destruction -- and so far none have turned up -- the U.N. was well on the way to cleansing Iraq. Saddam Hussein was murderously horrible, but he was long a client of the United States, especially beloved by the CIA, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld -- and our history is much more about propping up bloodthirsty dictators than taking them down.
Bush's and his neocon mentors' real reasons were and are the hardly marketable goals of conquest, hegemony, empire and oil.
And, praise the Lord, since this is in every material respect a Christian crusade against Muslims, the missionaries are massed to be the second wave into Iraq. They will use the old proselytizing ruse of bringing humanitarian aid, but what they want the Iraqis to swallow is the cross.
Clearly (at least to the Christian soldiers), Muslims are much in need of the Holy Brigade. Falwell has declared Mohammed a "terrorist." Jerry Vines, a prominent Jacksonville, Fla., Baptist preacher, said Islam's prophet was "a demon-possessed pedophile." Robertson declared the Muslim faith a "monumental scam." And Franklin Graham, who just last week presided over a come-to-Jesus session for crusaders at the Pentagon, has said Muslims pray to "a different God" and that Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion."
Overlooked by these men of God is that no faith rivals Christianity for the blood it has spilled. The eradication of the indigenous American civilizations and people -- in the name of God -- has no parallel. The crusades, the genocides, the Inquisition -- the litany goes on. I don't believe that current events signal "The End Is Near," but I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus wanted to hurry his Second Coming in order to clear his name, besmirched most recently by the arrogance, intolerance and hatred of the not-so-very-Christian right wing.
Leading the Church Militant will be generals such as Franklin Graham with his Samaritan's Purse -- a "here's food and water, but first you gotta hear a sermon" outfit. Atlanta's Stanley will field his divisions, dubbed In Touch Ministries, whose messages are broadcast in 14 languages worldwide. According to an article this month in Salon.com, "In Touch is just one of a phalanx in an army of Christian soldiers who see Muslim Iraq as an extraordinary new marketplace for their theology."
Stanley runs the 15,000-member First Baptist Church of Atlanta. Apparently overlooking Jesus' admonition to sell all, live in poverty and follow him, Stanley commands a $40 million empire. As a leader (past president) of the Southern Baptist Convention, Stanley helped spearhead a Taliban-style assault on women, banning them from the ministry and declaring them subservient to men.
Moreover, he is a theological contortionist, able on the one hand to condemn divorce, forbidding it to his followers, yet survive his own marriage's disintegration. He averred in 1995 to resign if he did get divorced, but, shucks, God just needs him so darn much that he had to break his vow.
And he just loves war. Oh, sure, he gives a half-hearted disclaimer in an online sermon, "A Nation at War," that "God is not excited about war." Stanley is divinely enlightened about what turns God on. The rest of the sermon is a hymn of adulation about slaughter. "God battles with people who oppose him," the reverend says. "So, even though he hates war, God is not against it."
Stanley's evidence is citations from the Old Testament. The preacher must have missed the theology classes where Jesus told his followers: "Whosoever smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also ... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you ..."
Stanley tells his faithful that God only forbids individual killing, but that the mass slaughter of warfare isn't really murder. "When a man in combat shoots his enemy under the command of the government, without personal hatred, he is not committing murder." That is a novel variation on "I was only following orders." If Stanley's spin on God's will is correct, every military butcher in history is exonerated -- as long as their massacres didn't involve "personal hatred."
The preacher's rationalizations should certainly shake the heavenly palaces where St. Augustine (4th century) and the 16th-century monk Erasmus are spending eternity. Augustine decried combat: "It is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word than to slay men with the sword, and to maintain peace by peace, not by war."
Erasmus opined that "there is nothing more wicked, more disastrous, more widely destructive, more deeply tenacious, more loathsome (than war). Once war has been declared, then all the affairs of the State are at the mercy of the few."
Preachers such as Stanley are enthralled by the Bush regime. Stanley thunders: "God clearly establishes the government's responsibilities and authority over us. ... The government is ordained by God with the right to promote good and restrain evil. This includes wickedness that exists within the nation, as well as any wicked persons or countries ... ."
The basis for that is a passage from Romans. Unfortunately, what Paul was doing was trying to deflect the anger of that earlier, pre-Bush Empire.
Jesus, I hate to remind the reverend, was a revolutionary who challenged the authority of both Rome and the ruling Jewish classes. He told Peter to put away his sword, forgave his killers, and died the Prince of Peace.
Senior Editor John Sugg -- who previously has confessed to practicing theology without a license -- can be reached at 404-614-1241 or at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com. His daily Web log is at www.cln.com/fishwrapper/suggreport.html
Copyright © 1996-2003 Creative Loafing Inc.
All rights reserved.
Friday, April 18, 2003
A GREAT ARTICLE ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF INTERNET NEWS OVER TELEVISION
Internet Kills the Television Blahs
By Farai Chideya, AlterNet
April 14, 2003
A few days after the start of the war, I was sitting in a hotel restaurant having breakfast. At night, the eatery was a sports bar. But that morning, fifteen television sets, some as large as five feet square, broadcast war coverage.
Over my eggs, toast, and coffee, I watched the last night’s bombing raids, big red blooms of fireballs. Interspersed were animated graphics of military maneuvers and equipment, like a sophisticated, nihilistic video game.
As hard as I tried, I couldn’t look away. Television is mesmeric, engaging, and according to scientific research, addictive. Last February in Scientific American, award-winning researchers Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi presented their findings on television addiction. It’s a term they reluctantly came to accept because the viewing patterns of Americans (who average 3+ hours per day) fit the classic definition. No shocker here: We feel relaxed while we’re channel surfing. But Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi were surprised that "the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue." In other words, we end up feeling slodgy and powerless right after a big TV binge.
But online news consumers have found a very different – and highly active – way of getting their information. Some of the most sophisticated news consumers, including progressives worldwide, have become the "blog"-era equivalent of news editors. By both receiving and distributing information via email, they vote with the click of a mouse on what information matters.
"It's nice to have these `intelligent agents’ – my friends and list neighbors – passing along the worthiest columns and news stories," says musician and radio producer David Gans. He receives information via listservs, discussions boards, and the online community The Well, whose Media conference he hosts. Individuals like Gans, informed and discerning about what they send out, become hubs in this distributed information network.
Net use has grown exponentially since the first Gulf War – the "television war" – a decade ago. Says Australian writer Richard Evans, "I prefer [online news] to watching television as I have more control of the kinds of images and stories I read. I also use the Google news service as a way of getting a quick overview of a variety of sources." Studies also show that Americans find the web outlets of major media (like CNN.com) more trustworthy than their parents.
Print and online publications that make it easy for readers to forward material have seen a jump in traffic. The New York Times sends out 3.7 million headline alerts each day. But their "Most Emailed Articles" feature – which allows online readers to see what other readers have forwarded – has come into its own. New York Times Digital spokesperson Christine Mohan says that in March, the highest-traffic month so far, the average number of articles emailed was about seventy-five thousand per day. But in the days preceding the war, readers emailed up to 120,000 stories daily. "When you send something to your colleague, the person is much more likely to open it. It’s that inherent trust," says Mohan.
Novelist Danzy Senna ("Caucasia") uses the New York Times’ system to email articles to friends and family. She also passes on alerts about upcoming peace marches and acts of civil disobedience. Judging by online outreach for recent peace rallies, the ability to customize and control the flow of information produces action as well as education. And alternative news sources may have benefited from the online news surge even more than major-media ones. In my admittedly unscientific survey of individuals who received and forwarded war-related news, most (including Senna) sent and received more independent than major-media coverage.
The downside? Not all information is credible. Web producer Emily Gertz finds some people on progressive listservs passing bad information on. "As part of harnessing the power of networked information," she says, "there needs to be a steady level of education about net resources and etiquette from those of us who've been online for a long time (in my case, over ten years)."
People who forward too much volume or too little of interest find people begging off their lists. And unique or "sticky" information, like Tamim Ansary’s letter about Afghanistan after 9/11, travels the world lightening quick, which opens the door for clever hoaxes.
The system is largely self-correcting, however – and growing. The only thing that could block news "intelligent agents" from their mission is the question of revenue. For now, most outlets don’t charge for accessing or forwarding information, happy simply that they’re getting more eyeballs. In this world, readers and publishers share the burden of distribution. Online information fans have turned Fox News’s slogan on its ear, telling outlets "You Report, The World Decides."
Farai Chideya is the founder of PopandPolitics.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet Kills the Television Blahs
By Farai Chideya, AlterNet
April 14, 2003
A few days after the start of the war, I was sitting in a hotel restaurant having breakfast. At night, the eatery was a sports bar. But that morning, fifteen television sets, some as large as five feet square, broadcast war coverage.
Over my eggs, toast, and coffee, I watched the last night’s bombing raids, big red blooms of fireballs. Interspersed were animated graphics of military maneuvers and equipment, like a sophisticated, nihilistic video game.
As hard as I tried, I couldn’t look away. Television is mesmeric, engaging, and according to scientific research, addictive. Last February in Scientific American, award-winning researchers Robert Kubey and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi presented their findings on television addiction. It’s a term they reluctantly came to accept because the viewing patterns of Americans (who average 3+ hours per day) fit the classic definition. No shocker here: We feel relaxed while we’re channel surfing. But Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi were surprised that "the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue." In other words, we end up feeling slodgy and powerless right after a big TV binge.
But online news consumers have found a very different – and highly active – way of getting their information. Some of the most sophisticated news consumers, including progressives worldwide, have become the "blog"-era equivalent of news editors. By both receiving and distributing information via email, they vote with the click of a mouse on what information matters.
"It's nice to have these `intelligent agents’ – my friends and list neighbors – passing along the worthiest columns and news stories," says musician and radio producer David Gans. He receives information via listservs, discussions boards, and the online community The Well, whose Media conference he hosts. Individuals like Gans, informed and discerning about what they send out, become hubs in this distributed information network.
Net use has grown exponentially since the first Gulf War – the "television war" – a decade ago. Says Australian writer Richard Evans, "I prefer [online news] to watching television as I have more control of the kinds of images and stories I read. I also use the Google news service as a way of getting a quick overview of a variety of sources." Studies also show that Americans find the web outlets of major media (like CNN.com) more trustworthy than their parents.
Print and online publications that make it easy for readers to forward material have seen a jump in traffic. The New York Times sends out 3.7 million headline alerts each day. But their "Most Emailed Articles" feature – which allows online readers to see what other readers have forwarded – has come into its own. New York Times Digital spokesperson Christine Mohan says that in March, the highest-traffic month so far, the average number of articles emailed was about seventy-five thousand per day. But in the days preceding the war, readers emailed up to 120,000 stories daily. "When you send something to your colleague, the person is much more likely to open it. It’s that inherent trust," says Mohan.
Novelist Danzy Senna ("Caucasia") uses the New York Times’ system to email articles to friends and family. She also passes on alerts about upcoming peace marches and acts of civil disobedience. Judging by online outreach for recent peace rallies, the ability to customize and control the flow of information produces action as well as education. And alternative news sources may have benefited from the online news surge even more than major-media ones. In my admittedly unscientific survey of individuals who received and forwarded war-related news, most (including Senna) sent and received more independent than major-media coverage.
The downside? Not all information is credible. Web producer Emily Gertz finds some people on progressive listservs passing bad information on. "As part of harnessing the power of networked information," she says, "there needs to be a steady level of education about net resources and etiquette from those of us who've been online for a long time (in my case, over ten years)."
People who forward too much volume or too little of interest find people begging off their lists. And unique or "sticky" information, like Tamim Ansary’s letter about Afghanistan after 9/11, travels the world lightening quick, which opens the door for clever hoaxes.
The system is largely self-correcting, however – and growing. The only thing that could block news "intelligent agents" from their mission is the question of revenue. For now, most outlets don’t charge for accessing or forwarding information, happy simply that they’re getting more eyeballs. In this world, readers and publishers share the burden of distribution. Online information fans have turned Fox News’s slogan on its ear, telling outlets "You Report, The World Decides."
Farai Chideya is the founder of PopandPolitics.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?
The News We Kept To Ourselves
Eason Jordan-CNN
Various Opinions
From NY Times 4-15-03
"A recent acknowledgment by Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, that he withheld some accounts of Saddam Hussein's brutality for years to protect the lives of Iraqi sources came in for some withering criticism yesterday.
Several journalism professors and commentators said Mr. Jordan had compromised CNN's journalistic mission so the cable network could continue to report from Iraq. In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Mr. Jordan revealed his knowledge of the Iraqi regime's use of torture and murder, information that he said he could not divulge until the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today, Mr. Jordan said the issue was not about access, but about life and death.
"It's very simple," he said. "Do you report things that get people killed? The answer is no."
According to the article, Mr. Hussein's secret police subjected an Iraqi CNN cameraman to weeks of electroshock torture in the mid-1990's as they tried to elicit confirmation that Mr. Jordan was an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. (Mr. Jordan called the allegation against him ludicrous.)
Mr. Jordan also wrote that Uday Hussein, Mr. Hussein's eldest son, told him in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two brothers-in-law who had defected to Jordan, as well as King Hussein of Jordan. Mr. Jordan said he told this to the king, who shrugged it off. The two brothers-in-law were later assassinated.
The revelations were harshly criticized by commentators, both conservative and liberal, including Rush Limbaugh and Juan Williams. Bill McLaughlin, an associate professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said CNN could have found a creative way to report the anecdotes Mr. Jordan had collected without jeopardizing people in Iraq.
Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute, said CNN had traded its ability to report the truth for a continued presence in the Baghdad. "In essence, he was caught over a long period of time dealing with the devil," he said.
Mr. Jordan said that CNN had made no such deal, nor would it, and that CNN's reporting about the regime was fair and tough-minded.
Mr. Jordan's admission pointed up a problem that many news organizations wrestled with in the months leading up to war, and during it.
Until the first statue of Mr. Hussein fell, Western journalists in the Iraqi capital often could not report detailed accounts of government brutality for fear of jeopardizing interview subjects.
In the end, Mr. Jordan said he came to a conclusion that others had as well: for all of the restrictions and dangers in Baghdad, it was better to be there than not.
Some of Mr. Jordan's colleagues at other networks indicated sympathy for his predicament. "If we thought that we were endangering somebody we had hired to help us to report, that would be something that we would weigh very heavily," said Michele Grant, BBC's director of development in the United States.
Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, said Mr. Jordan was being unfairly singled out. "I think every news organization has to make those kinds of calls from time to time," he said."
The News We Kept To Ourselves
Eason Jordan-CNN
Various Opinions
From NY Times 4-15-03
"A recent acknowledgment by Eason Jordan, CNN's chief news executive, that he withheld some accounts of Saddam Hussein's brutality for years to protect the lives of Iraqi sources came in for some withering criticism yesterday.
Several journalism professors and commentators said Mr. Jordan had compromised CNN's journalistic mission so the cable network could continue to report from Iraq. In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Friday, Mr. Jordan revealed his knowledge of the Iraqi regime's use of torture and murder, information that he said he could not divulge until the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today, Mr. Jordan said the issue was not about access, but about life and death.
"It's very simple," he said. "Do you report things that get people killed? The answer is no."
According to the article, Mr. Hussein's secret police subjected an Iraqi CNN cameraman to weeks of electroshock torture in the mid-1990's as they tried to elicit confirmation that Mr. Jordan was an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. (Mr. Jordan called the allegation against him ludicrous.)
Mr. Jordan also wrote that Uday Hussein, Mr. Hussein's eldest son, told him in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two brothers-in-law who had defected to Jordan, as well as King Hussein of Jordan. Mr. Jordan said he told this to the king, who shrugged it off. The two brothers-in-law were later assassinated.
The revelations were harshly criticized by commentators, both conservative and liberal, including Rush Limbaugh and Juan Williams. Bill McLaughlin, an associate professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, said CNN could have found a creative way to report the anecdotes Mr. Jordan had collected without jeopardizing people in Iraq.
Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute, said CNN had traded its ability to report the truth for a continued presence in the Baghdad. "In essence, he was caught over a long period of time dealing with the devil," he said.
Mr. Jordan said that CNN had made no such deal, nor would it, and that CNN's reporting about the regime was fair and tough-minded.
Mr. Jordan's admission pointed up a problem that many news organizations wrestled with in the months leading up to war, and during it.
Until the first statue of Mr. Hussein fell, Western journalists in the Iraqi capital often could not report detailed accounts of government brutality for fear of jeopardizing interview subjects.
In the end, Mr. Jordan said he came to a conclusion that others had as well: for all of the restrictions and dangers in Baghdad, it was better to be there than not.
Some of Mr. Jordan's colleagues at other networks indicated sympathy for his predicament. "If we thought that we were endangering somebody we had hired to help us to report, that would be something that we would weigh very heavily," said Michele Grant, BBC's director of development in the United States.
Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, said Mr. Jordan was being unfairly singled out. "I think every news organization has to make those kinds of calls from time to time," he said."
It is time to get fierce
"...in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs?
In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce."
Tim Robbins
From a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003
"...in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs?
In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce."
Tim Robbins
From a speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003
In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?
--It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy. But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for false optimists who invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations, such as weapons of mass destruction, which are still unproved. So I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of "liberation" is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin. In other words, the real and frightening story starts now.--
--Why, Iraqis are asking, did the United States allow the entire Iraqi cabinet to escape?--
--Were they monsters, these men? Yes. Are they sought by the Americans? No. Are they now working for the Americans? Yes, quite possibly -indeed some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the hope of being re-hired by the US Marines' Civil Affairs Unit.--
--At the end of the Second World War, German-speaking British and US intelligence officers hoovered up every document in the thousands of Gestapo and Abwehr bureaux across western Germany. The Russians did the same in their zone. In Iraq, however, the British and Americans have simply ignored the evidence.--
--Even the unshredded files contain a wealth of information. But again, the Americans have not bothered -or do not want -to search through these papers. If they did, they would find the names of dozens of senior intelligence men, many of them identified in congratulatory letters they insisted on sending each other every time they were promoted. Where now, for example, is Colonel Abdulaziz Saadi, Captain Abdulsalam Salawi, Captain Saad Ahmed al-Ayash, Colonel Saad Mohammed, Captain Majid Ahmed and scores of others? We may never know. Or perhaps we are not supposed to know.--
--Iraqis are right to ask why the Americans don't search for this information, just as they are right to demand to know why the entire Saddam cabinet -every man jack of them -got away. The capture by the Americans of Saddam's half-brother and the ageing Palestinian gunman Abu Abbas, whose last violent act was 18 years ago, is pathetic compensation for this.--
--Now here's another question the Iraqis are asking, and to which I cannot provide an answer. On 8 April, three weeks into the invasion, the Americans dropped four 2,000lb bombs on the Baghdad residential area of Mansur. They claimed they thought Saddam was hiding there. They knew they would kill civilians because it was not, as one Centcom mandarin said, a "risk free venture" (sic). So they dropped their bombs and killed 14 civilians in Mansur, most of them members of a Christian family.--
--The Americans said they couldn't be sure they had killed Saddam until they could carry out forensic tests at the site. But this turns out to have been a lie. I went there two days ago. Not a single US or British official had bothered to visit the bomb craters. Indeed, when I arrived, there was a putrefying smell and families pulled the remains of a baby from the rubble.--
--No American officers have apologised for this appalling killing. And I can promise them that the baby I saw being placed under a sheet of black plastic was very definitely not Saddam Hussein. Had they bothered to look at this place-as they claimed they would- they would at least have found the baby. Now the craters are a place of pilgrimage for the people of Baghdad.--
--Because there is also something dangerous and deeply disturbing about the crowds setting light to the buildings of Baghdad, including the great libraries and state archives. For they are not looters. The looters come first. The arsonists turn up later, often in blue-and-white buses. I followed one after its passengers had set the Ministry of Trade on fire and it sped out of town.
The official US line on all this is that the looting is revenge ..an explanation that is growing very thin ..and that the fires are started by "remnants of Saddam's regime", the same "criminal elements", no doubt, who feature in the marines' curfew orders. But people in Baghdad don't believe Saddam's former supporters are starting these fires. And neither do I.
The looters make money from their rampages but the arsonists have to be paid. The passengers in those buses are clearly being directed to their targets. If Saddam had pre-paid them, they wouldn't start the fires. The moment he disappeared, they would have pocketed the money and forgotten the whole project.
So who are they, this army of arsonists? I recognised one the other day, a middle-aged, unshaven man in a red T-shirt, and the second time he saw me he pointed a Kalashnikov at me. What was he frightened of? Who was he working for? In whose interest is it to destroy the entire physical infrastructure of the state, with its cultural heritage? Why didn't the Americans stop this?--
--Why, for example, did Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, claim last week that there was no widespread looting or destruction in Baghdad? His statement was a lie. But why did he make it?--
--In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?--
Robert Fisk
The Independent UK
--It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy. But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for false optimists who invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations, such as weapons of mass destruction, which are still unproved. So I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of "liberation" is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin. In other words, the real and frightening story starts now.--
--Why, Iraqis are asking, did the United States allow the entire Iraqi cabinet to escape?--
--Were they monsters, these men? Yes. Are they sought by the Americans? No. Are they now working for the Americans? Yes, quite possibly -indeed some of them may well be in the long line of ex-security thugs who queue every morning outside the Palestine Hotel in the hope of being re-hired by the US Marines' Civil Affairs Unit.--
--At the end of the Second World War, German-speaking British and US intelligence officers hoovered up every document in the thousands of Gestapo and Abwehr bureaux across western Germany. The Russians did the same in their zone. In Iraq, however, the British and Americans have simply ignored the evidence.--
--Even the unshredded files contain a wealth of information. But again, the Americans have not bothered -or do not want -to search through these papers. If they did, they would find the names of dozens of senior intelligence men, many of them identified in congratulatory letters they insisted on sending each other every time they were promoted. Where now, for example, is Colonel Abdulaziz Saadi, Captain Abdulsalam Salawi, Captain Saad Ahmed al-Ayash, Colonel Saad Mohammed, Captain Majid Ahmed and scores of others? We may never know. Or perhaps we are not supposed to know.--
--Iraqis are right to ask why the Americans don't search for this information, just as they are right to demand to know why the entire Saddam cabinet -every man jack of them -got away. The capture by the Americans of Saddam's half-brother and the ageing Palestinian gunman Abu Abbas, whose last violent act was 18 years ago, is pathetic compensation for this.--
--Now here's another question the Iraqis are asking, and to which I cannot provide an answer. On 8 April, three weeks into the invasion, the Americans dropped four 2,000lb bombs on the Baghdad residential area of Mansur. They claimed they thought Saddam was hiding there. They knew they would kill civilians because it was not, as one Centcom mandarin said, a "risk free venture" (sic). So they dropped their bombs and killed 14 civilians in Mansur, most of them members of a Christian family.--
--The Americans said they couldn't be sure they had killed Saddam until they could carry out forensic tests at the site. But this turns out to have been a lie. I went there two days ago. Not a single US or British official had bothered to visit the bomb craters. Indeed, when I arrived, there was a putrefying smell and families pulled the remains of a baby from the rubble.--
--No American officers have apologised for this appalling killing. And I can promise them that the baby I saw being placed under a sheet of black plastic was very definitely not Saddam Hussein. Had they bothered to look at this place-as they claimed they would- they would at least have found the baby. Now the craters are a place of pilgrimage for the people of Baghdad.--
--Because there is also something dangerous and deeply disturbing about the crowds setting light to the buildings of Baghdad, including the great libraries and state archives. For they are not looters. The looters come first. The arsonists turn up later, often in blue-and-white buses. I followed one after its passengers had set the Ministry of Trade on fire and it sped out of town.
The official US line on all this is that the looting is revenge ..an explanation that is growing very thin ..and that the fires are started by "remnants of Saddam's regime", the same "criminal elements", no doubt, who feature in the marines' curfew orders. But people in Baghdad don't believe Saddam's former supporters are starting these fires. And neither do I.
The looters make money from their rampages but the arsonists have to be paid. The passengers in those buses are clearly being directed to their targets. If Saddam had pre-paid them, they wouldn't start the fires. The moment he disappeared, they would have pocketed the money and forgotten the whole project.
So who are they, this army of arsonists? I recognised one the other day, a middle-aged, unshaven man in a red T-shirt, and the second time he saw me he pointed a Kalashnikov at me. What was he frightened of? Who was he working for? In whose interest is it to destroy the entire physical infrastructure of the state, with its cultural heritage? Why didn't the Americans stop this?--
--Why, for example, did Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence, claim last week that there was no widespread looting or destruction in Baghdad? His statement was a lie. But why did he make it?--
--In whose interest is it for Iraq to be deconstructed, divided, burnt, de-historied, destroyed?--
Robert Fisk
The Independent UK
TODAY'S TIDBITS FROM THE OP-EDS
"While we've been watching the Iraq show, many past achievements of U.S. foreign policy have been disintegrating. Through neglect and arrogance, the United States has squandered the good will it built up in Latin America in the 1990's. For half a century the U.S. has regarded the drive toward free trade as a key part of its global strategy; now trade negotiations are falling apart from lack of attention.
Even in Iraq, we're starting to see that winning the war was the easy part, and U.S. officials — previously dismissive of "old Europe" — are suddenly talking about an international peacekeeping force. But to be effective, such a force, like the one in Afghanistan, would surely have to include French and German soldiers.
The truth is that we can't go it alone. But by the time that truth sinks in, there may be a lot of pieces to pick up. "
Paul Krugman
NYTimes
"For the overwhelming political lesson of the last year is that war works — that is, it's an excellent cover for the Republican Party's domestic political agenda. In fact, war works in two ways. The public rallies around the flag, which means the President and his party; and the public's attention is diverted from other issues.
As long as the nation is at war, then, it will be hard to get the public to notice what the flagwavers are doing behind our backs. And it just so happens that the "Bush doctrine," which calls for preventive war against countries that may someday pose a threat, offers the possibility of a series of wars against nasty regimes with weak armies.
Someday the public will figure all this out. But it may be a very long wait."
Paul Krugman
NY Times 4-15-03
"While we've been watching the Iraq show, many past achievements of U.S. foreign policy have been disintegrating. Through neglect and arrogance, the United States has squandered the good will it built up in Latin America in the 1990's. For half a century the U.S. has regarded the drive toward free trade as a key part of its global strategy; now trade negotiations are falling apart from lack of attention.
Even in Iraq, we're starting to see that winning the war was the easy part, and U.S. officials — previously dismissive of "old Europe" — are suddenly talking about an international peacekeeping force. But to be effective, such a force, like the one in Afghanistan, would surely have to include French and German soldiers.
The truth is that we can't go it alone. But by the time that truth sinks in, there may be a lot of pieces to pick up. "
Paul Krugman
NYTimes
"For the overwhelming political lesson of the last year is that war works — that is, it's an excellent cover for the Republican Party's domestic political agenda. In fact, war works in two ways. The public rallies around the flag, which means the President and his party; and the public's attention is diverted from other issues.
As long as the nation is at war, then, it will be hard to get the public to notice what the flagwavers are doing behind our backs. And it just so happens that the "Bush doctrine," which calls for preventive war against countries that may someday pose a threat, offers the possibility of a series of wars against nasty regimes with weak armies.
Someday the public will figure all this out. But it may be a very long wait."
Paul Krugman
NY Times 4-15-03
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)