Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
by Andrew E. Kramer on June 19, 2008.
The article explains how after
several decades absent from oil-rich Iraq, huge oil firms are gearing
up to return thanks to contracts offered by the US-backed Iraqi
The article is some fine reporting until we get to
this contender for Understatement of the Century: "There was suspicion
among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public
that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the
oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has
said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear
what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are
still American advisers to Iraqs Oil Ministry."
In other words,
we're still not quite sure that the USA vs. Iraq wars that began almost
20 years ago with King Bush the First are about oil. In fact, we're not
sure even though the same article states the contracts the US oil firms
have been awarded are "no bid" contracts, and all such contracts, by
some irrelevant coincidence, went to American firms.
have been "parts" of the American public who suspected the Iraq War(s)
were simply to secure oil. Being one of those people, I can also tell
you that I have another sneaking suspicion that up is up and down is
down. In addition, I want to know what parts of the American public did
NOT have the suspicion that military action in Iraq was about oil. Why?
Because I need to alert them to the fact that my pubic hairs are
currently on sale for a limited time, each one guaranteed to bring good
luck, for a mere $10,000 each.
Even some people who were
pro-Iraq War back in 2003 before this phase of it started, those few
who were bluntly honest said, "Hey we need the oil, so we've got to
take it." Regardless of pro or anti war stance, only people who were
being deliberately dishonest or diplomatic to the point of dishonesty
said the war was NOT about oil.
However, let's give the NYT a
benefit. Maybe we walk in different circles. Maybe the people I hang
with are distrustful of lies told to them by habitual liars. Maybe my
crew is an extra paranoid bunch and when a guy whose family has gotten
wealthy off oil decides to launch a war for an oil rich country, well,
we're naturally going to be suspicious. It's what we do. Maybe it's
just that I associate with folks who, after the 100th different lie is
blown apart and the 1,000th new revelation that oil is being protected
above everything else, always cry, "I give up. This darn war is about
oil no matter what they say."
Anyway, it's not just the NYT I
want to lash with my witty sarcasm, it's the standards of mainstream
journalism. How is it that they are so timid? How is it that the New
York Times, one of the most powerful media outlets in the world, can't
just say it for what it is? How is it that when someone spouts bullshit
in my life I can just say "You're a liar," but in the media world, they
will say anything but? In fact, I'd like to try an experiment. I wonder
if Bush just came out and said "I'm a liar," if the NYT would still
hesitate to call him a liar.
Okay, so maybe the comparison is
oversimplified, but why can't journalism take the bullshit-calling
technology of average folk and apply it to their life? Why can't the
NYT just say, "The fact that the no-bid contracts are going only to
American companies from Iraq's American-advised Oil Ministry are
another point in favor of those who believe the Iraq War was primarily
Maybe I'm not even living up to my own standard
here, so let me call it: The President has the corporate media where he
wants them. They can't criticize him too harshly or he'll just refuse
to talk to them. Then how will they write the story? So the press
tip-toes lightly to preserve that all-important access.
why I think there should be mandated press conferences with the
President, with people selected at random, not reporters, given access.
The whole concept of a "Washington Press Corps" to me smells
anti-democratic. Of course they're going to form an ass-kissing clique.
Those randomly selected citizens would be able to ask whatever question
they like and the whole thing would be televised.
selection of the participants would be key. Meaning, they would have to
be stocked with real people, not obvious tools as in a bogus McCain "town hall" meeting
the world accepts my superb idea, we can rely on big media for their
access to the powerful, but we sure can't rely on them for a tough
analysis. For that, I'll turn to blogs and internet forums.Amazon
and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From?
is also available as an eBook
. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's
website at http://www.larrynocella.com/