Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oil-for-Food "Scandal": How the Neo-Cons Hyped a Non-Story

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:18 PM
Original message
Oil-for-Food "Scandal": How the Neo-Cons Hyped a Non-Story
Edited on Mon Dec-27-04 03:20 PM by BurtWorm
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050110&s=williams


The story of how the neocon echo chamber made oil for food into a UN scandal begins with Claudia Rosett, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who is now "journalist in residence" at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). In a 2002 Journal op-ed, just after Bush broke with his own hard-liners by going to the UN to ask for backing for an Iraq invasion, she called the program "an unholy union between Saddam and the U.N.," in which "Saddam has been getting around the sanctions via surcharge-kickback deals and smuggling." In an April 2003 New York Times piece she said "lifting the sanctions would take away the United Nations' remaining leverage in Iraq. If the oil-for-food operation is extended, however, it will have a tremendous influence on shaping the new Iraq. Before that is allowed to happen, let's see the books." Denying that the foundation, or for that matter Chalabi, set her on her quest, Rosett says she began looking at the program as part of a broader look at the Iraq economy, and that as soon as its structure was explained to her, "it was obvious that there was enormous opportunity there for graft."

The idea that the UN has "failed" by not backing the US invasion of Iraq and that everything Saddam did could be laid at its door was very much part of the house philosophy of FDD, whose masthead is a comprehensive list of those who pushed for the invasion of Iraq. The organization itself, as one observer commented, is the Project for the New American Century--the major cheerleader for the Iraq war--in another form. Its board includes Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Lautenberg, Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, not to mention Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer. Tom Barry, policy director of the International Relations Center and historian of the neocon network, says FDD "has suddenly become a major player on the right and among neocon policy institutes, one reason being that it is so richly endowed." As its own website boasts, it is closely connected with the Iraqis around the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi.

Clifford May, FDD president and former RNC spokesman, is eager to admit that "oil for food is something we have been working hard on" but denies "that either Claudia or I have called for resignation." That's not because May admires the UN; he calls it "an institution badly in need of reform, whether it's for the sex scandals in the Congo or for the pretense some people in it have to become a super government for the world, or a world Supreme Court." Asked her opinion about the use others have made of her work, Rosett says, "I have focused on reporting the story, and where I have so far called for changes at the UN, have urged much greater transparency and accountability."

...


In subsequent articles Rosett maintained the pressure, but the issue really only exploded into the wider media world in 2004, after her revelations last March in National Review that Annan's son had been employed by Cotecna (followed several months later with the news that he had continued to get "noncompete" payments after he left). From January onward, the claims by Washington's then-favorite Iraqi, Chalabi, that retiring oil-for-food chief Sevan was on a list of 267 people for whom Saddam had authorized commissions on oil trades led to a rash of stories by Rosett and others focusing, as Chalabi had, on the one alleged UN connection. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. And the wingers wonder why only wingers are interested in the story...
"Rosett and her colleagues ran hot with the story, not least on MSNBC and Fox, which retained her as a paid "oil-for-food" contributor. Soon the scandal was "the biggest in the history of the Universe," according to her FDD colleague and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. William Safire picked up on Rosett's work and fulminated in the New York Times, drawing in House International Relations Committee chair Henry Hyde, who's since been on the case with all the assiduity one would expect of someone who'd said the United States should leave the UN.

"Monica Crowley, hosting Scarborough Country on MSNBC in November, inadvertently substantiated the Star Tribune's claim of a "right-wing constellation." She complained that the "elite" press was ignoring the oil-for-food story, "with the exception of an intrepid reporter like our friend Claudia Rosett.... Bill Safire over at the New York Times, sort of the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun, they have been covering it. But why haven't we seen more extensive coverage? This is the world's biggest swindle?" She modestly omitted MSNBC, Fox and the conservative radio circuit from the list...."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's more "noise" to distract from reality. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. More lies from the right........
...discusting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleBallots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. I consider it to be a real scandal, it's just not what they thought
It's basically an example of US competitors - Russia, France, some others - undermining our sanctions against Iraq, mixed with a whole lot of good old fashioned greed and corruption.

It got interesting when we found out that our own oil corporations were helping, and that the US pretty much knew about the whole thing the whole time - just like we knew when the oil corporations were undermining the sanctions against the coup regime in Haiti in the 1990s.

The wingnuts couldn't understand why their "story" wasn't getting any traction - because the GOP, or at least their paymasters, were in on the whole thing since the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bush* has been out to destroy Koffi Annan for not blessing his war
By the way, whatever happened to Chalabi?????? Our favorite of the Wacky Iraqis>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impeachthescoundrel Donating Member (395 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. My thoughts on the matter exactly
"Bush* has been out to destroy Koffi Annan for not blessing his war"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishingriver Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. UN Oil for Food Propaganda
The truth is that all of this hub bub is just more freedom fries being served up to keep Americans happy with being an isolated aggressor nation.
This is the right wing preconditioning Americans for their next global policy the world is certain to reject. They want you to believe that the UN is corrupt, irrelevant, and powerless. Americans don't understand that it is the world we are losing. The right wing wants the American people to see the UN as a commission who has no purpose except to make money for themselves and disrespect our president. They are personalizing it by painting Kofi Anan as the face of the bad committee. They are doing this to re-identify the UN and to shrink it down to a few vilified individuals rather than the world itself.
They want you to hate the and disrespect the UN now so that when the UN rejects US policy you will write them off.
We Americans are either going to learn how to recognize propaganda or march straight to hell with our eyes closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Osamasux Donating Member (846 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-27-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Frank Lautenberg??
One of these things is not like the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC