or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
June 19, 2008
Judy Miller Is Back
By: Bernard Chazelle
In the early seventies, Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company, a US-UK-French consortium that had a monopoly on Iraqi oil.
4,000 US troops made the ultimate sacrifice to bring back the good old days.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields
Note that, if not for Sarkozy's passionate ass-kissing, the word "Total" would be missing from the previous paragraph.
What is unexplained is how these US/UK/French companies somehow prevailed over more than 40 companies.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.
The NYT can't figure out how we pulled that off.
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
I can't imagine how the US could have had a hand in that. It's just one of those random events. I'm sure Chinese and Russian oil companies came very close to winning the whole thing, but hey sometimes the sun shines in the west.
Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.
Note the sensitivity to the appearance, not to the actual theft. In the Judy-Miller school of journalism, this requires further investigation. So the Times correspondent consults with a neutral party, like, say, the CEO of one of the oil companies: "We're here to help. It's really a humanitarian cause." Phew. That's a relief.
Just in case the reader still had any lingering doubt. Were the companies chosen because they had the support of 160,000 heavily armed thugs? Not at all.
the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts
Having made the case that Raymond Lee is the new Mother Teresa, the Times now moves on to the heroic part of the story. We're not just saints. We're martyrs and heroes.
Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
OMG! I think I'm going to short-circuit my laptop with all those tears running down my face and soaking my keyboard.
Wait, in case you're a little slow, let's repeat the main point:
The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.
Get that. We're saints. But those damn Chinese and Russians, well, you know about them.
A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.
The Times piece is now in full repeat mode. The last word goes to Exxon's former CEO:
“There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”
Plus ca change....
— Bernard Chazelle
Posted at June 19, 2008 10:23 AMGREED knows no bounds, neither does STUPIDITY. (only 25 million more to kill and all that beautiful OIL is ours, eh Precious)
Posted by: Mike Meyer at June 19, 2008 12:17 PMOf course the oil execs need security. For some reason, the population that they have worked to literally rape and murder insist on doing the same to them. How uncouth. How do I know that our presence in Iraq is evil? Because any good, patriotic Iraqi is morally obligated to kill any American in his country -- and it wouldn't be murder to do so. That's how you know it's time to go.
Posted by: No One of Consequence at June 19, 2008 12:27 PMWhy so cynical? Now our brave, idealistic oil execs are free to rip open the Iraqi surface and begin drilling for pure, unfiltered liberty.
Posted by: Constantine at June 19, 2008 12:50 PM...morally obligated...
What the heck does that mean? Morally obligated?
Putting any of this in terms of morality open it up to the likes of Samantha Powers, Madeleine Albright, and the rest of our collective betters telling us what it takes to be human.
You shouldn't (or should) do it because logically and pragmatically it makes sense in the moment. Two or three moments from now, pragmatism and logic will probably dictate another course of action.
Posted by: Labiche at June 19, 2008 01:04 PMJust kill me now. No, really, right this minute.
Posted by: catherine at June 19, 2008 02:25 PMPutting any of this in terms of morality open it up to the likes of Samantha Powers, Madeleine Albright, and the rest of our collective betters telling us what it takes to be human.
What does THAT mean? Wtf do I care what a bunch of liars will make of my statement? I said Iraqis are morally obligated to fight our soldiers because that is the truth.
You shouldn't (or should) do it because logically and pragmatically it makes sense in the moment. Two or three moments from now, pragmatism and logic will probably dictate another course of action.
Which does nothing at all to contradict what I just said. Moral obligation arises from the facts and circumstances of a given event. Both pragmatic and logical concerns are inherent to a moral analysis. So wtf are you talking about? I'm not even sure if you're actually disagreeing with anything I said.
And Constantine, the oil execs don't want to drill the oil; they want to control the oil. They intend to put it on the market when they're good and ready, and not before.
Posted by: No One of Consequence at June 19, 2008 03:33 PMI mostly agree with you, just find doing things on the basis of "morality" as unconvincing, is all.
Got an email from FAIR about Russert, and they had this:
ABC's Sam Donaldson weighed in with one of the most revealing comments (This Week, 6/15/08): "He understood as well as anyone, maybe better than almost anyone, that the reason political reporters are there is not to speak truth to power. Today's truth is tomorrow's falsity."
I thought that was so -- how would you say? Reality based.
Posted by: Labiche at June 19, 2008 05:30 PMI can't imagine how the US could have had a hand in that. It's just one of those random events. I'm sure Chinese and Russian oil companies came very close to winning the whole thing, but hey sometimes the sun shines in the west.
How did that happen in all the chaos? the concatenation of coincidences required for that fabulous outcome would seem almost miraculous...In fact, I'm gonna say a novena...in honor of St Jude, the patron saint of hopeless cases...
Posted by: woody, tokin librul at June 19, 2008 08:22 PMI see the NYT is still quoting anonymous officials. It always reminds me of that old Soviet joke: Two Russians meet on the train. "Hi, I'm Boris," says one. "I'm an engineer, on my way to Minsk." "I'm going to Tomsk," says the other. "I'm a government spokesman." "Ah," says Boris. "So you're not going to Tomsk."
If an official source faces no reprisals for telling the press something and still seeks anonymity, it is because they do not wish to be publicly associated with statements that are false. There is no other credible motive for their coyness. Do journos not get this or do they just not care?
Posted by: RobWeaver at June 19, 2008 09:28 PMfinally, all the hard murdering, raping, torturing, maiming, displacing, imprisoning, widowing and orphaning of millions of Iraqis is starting to pay off for some well-connected oil bigs.
score!!!
Posted by: ran at June 19, 2008 09:38 PMIf George Bush is, how do you guys call that in the US, the Supreme Divine Imperial Great Commander of the United States Army, wouldn't it be entirely legal and moral for any Iraqi, in the name of resistance, to kill the guy as a brutal enemy and occupier?
I'd love to see that. And then the killer could surrender and have all the rights of the Geneva Convention.
I admit, I'm theorizing.
Or one could just make him/her president of the US right away! (S)He will be the first US president with a moral backbone in many decades!
As for evil, noone can surpass Cheney of course. But could one legally kill him too?
I'd love to, where can I can an Iraqi passport?
I suppose Putin is real happy about that since Bush talked him in to forgiving Iraqi debt so Russia would be able to compete for contracts.
Posted by: Jim at June 25, 2008 04:24 PM
