esmaspäev, aprill 19, 2004
Still Beating, Still Dead
Just to return to the Safire for a moment. The article ends on this note:
But outrage that drives coverage is selective, and there is little establishment appetite to pursue this complex scandal. Speaking power to truth, Newsweek headlines "Anti-U.N. Campaign," and reports dark suspicions by U.N. bureaucrats that the scandal was "drummed up" by the doves' Iraqi villain, Ahmad Chalabi.
France's U.S. ambassador writes under "Oil-for-Food Lies" in The Los Angeles Times that "unfounded accusations . . . have been spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S." He noted that all 15 members of the Security Council approved all the oil-for-food contracts, and "the complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them. . . ."
What I find odd about this is that Safire acknowledges that the French ambassador is calling him a liar, but he says nothing to defend himself against that accusation. He also very quickly glosses over the suggestion that US firms were also profiting earlier in the article. I'm not saying Safire's necessarily wrong. The program clearly had corruption issues. But the leap from that to "this is why they opposed the war" really needs a clearer defense. Does he have any proof that this isn't a scandal drummed up by Ahmad Chalabi? If he does, he ain't sharing.
But then, why should he? He's William Safire, bastion of truth in a world gone mad.
How's that Hillary indictment you promised us every damn week for eight years going, Bill?
|
Just to return to the Safire for a moment. The article ends on this note:
But outrage that drives coverage is selective, and there is little establishment appetite to pursue this complex scandal. Speaking power to truth, Newsweek headlines "Anti-U.N. Campaign," and reports dark suspicions by U.N. bureaucrats that the scandal was "drummed up" by the doves' Iraqi villain, Ahmad Chalabi.
France's U.S. ambassador writes under "Oil-for-Food Lies" in The Los Angeles Times that "unfounded accusations . . . have been spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S." He noted that all 15 members of the Security Council approved all the oil-for-food contracts, and "the complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them. . . ."
What I find odd about this is that Safire acknowledges that the French ambassador is calling him a liar, but he says nothing to defend himself against that accusation. He also very quickly glosses over the suggestion that US firms were also profiting earlier in the article. I'm not saying Safire's necessarily wrong. The program clearly had corruption issues. But the leap from that to "this is why they opposed the war" really needs a clearer defense. Does he have any proof that this isn't a scandal drummed up by Ahmad Chalabi? If he does, he ain't sharing.
But then, why should he? He's William Safire, bastion of truth in a world gone mad.
How's that Hillary indictment you promised us every damn week for eight years going, Bill?
