Skip to comments.Where's the Outrage? Why has the Oil for Food scandal not attracted the media's ire?
Posted on 12/22/2004 8:06:12 PM PST by CHARLITE
Article Options Email this article to a friend Send a letter to the editor Print this article
Imagine that a United States government program, Medicaid for example, had lost more than 20 billion dollars to blatant graft and corruption. Imagine that the executive director of that program had himself benefited personally to the tune of millions of dollars. Imagine that the Presidents son was under serious suspicion of being involved in the scandal. Imagine that the independent government investigation was being paid for with funds from the program itself. Imagine that some of the money skimmed off was used to fund a terrorist insurgency. Finally, imagine that the scandal permeated the government to such a degree that national security decisions were influenced. Well it turns out that an active imagination really isnt necessaryall of these things actually happened under the auspices of the vaunted United Nations (UN) oil for food program in Iraq. What is clearly the single biggest case of humanitarian fraud in history, and what might be the largest financial fraud of any kind in modern times, has gone rather unnoted in the American media.
To be fair, there have been some stories on the scandal, but the media has certainly not flooded the zone or applied the sort of consistent pressure that blows stories open. At a time when the UNs role is under debate as never before, the lack of attention to this issue is troubling. Additionally, it is downright strange, because the American media are usually fascinated by whistleblower stories of institutional corruption and deceit. Surely we all remember the media attention lavished upon the Enron scandal, the ceaseless search for more documents and evidence and the sympathy heaped upon the poor souls who were victimized by Ken Lays malfeasance.
Where, though, are the sympathy pieces for the Iraqi children who died because of the systematic defrauding of tens of billions of dollars? Where are the hit pieces on the corrupt UN bureaucrats who cut deals with a mass-murderer to line their own pockets? Why has Kofi Annan, the person ultimately responsible for the UNs conduct, not had his feet held to the fire as any other public figure would? Whats more, why have the people who blew the lid on this scandal not been honored? The women who blew open scandals at the FBI, Worldcom, and Enron were honored with extensive media coverage, interviews and eventually shared Time magazines person of the year award.
The reason is that the United Nations, especially among media types, still conjures up vague connotations of unselfishness, unity and peace-seeking; people find it hard to believe that the one significant institution of world wide governance is just as corrupt and dysfunctional as any third world autocracy. How is it possible that a program run to benefit Iraqi citizens could end up giving money to the terrorists who are now so regularly blowing them to pieces? Because the United Nations is, and has been for some time, corrupt. The media should lose their outdated awe for the United Nations and recognize it for what it is: not a utopian world-government but a Byzantine, unaccountable, deeply flawed and all too often selfish bureaucracy.
Mark A. Adomanis 07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator living in Eliot House.
The Left covers for its own, and cares not who (else) dies in the process. We have many decades of examples of this; it is nothing new.
It's not bad news for the US, so therefore it is not news to the MSM. There is never anything in the news about any good going on around the world. Nothing beyond fluff crap anyway.
What are they supposed to do when Willie Wonka George Bush sends out the clowns to ENDORSE Coffee ANNAN?
It's becoming much more clear that "W" is a new world order guy in sheeps clothing. No border protection, no assault on the UN for abiding the Hussein regime through oil for food shanagins, no massive military assault on the Iraq maggots, keeping Tenent and Mineta on as cooleys to the cause....
Ann Coulter for President.
The UN is a corrupt turkey.
But it is the left's corrupt turkey. Therefore, sacrosanct and safe from carping by the mainstream media.
Dear Mr. President, When is your administration going to enforce the law?
I figure, nobody is getting very upset because they're in one of two categories:
1. They are extremely pro-UN to the point of being able to ignore even such outrageous corruption.
2.They have been uncertain about or opposed to the UN and heard about this scam ages ago.
Die UN uber alles!
"George Bush sends out the clowns to ENDORSE Coffee ANNAN?"
Let me explain it to you this way. If Bush wants to get Annan then he cannot attack him directly. That would rally the MSM to his defense. Bush knows that Annan is seriously wounded and prefers to let him twist in the wind. Annan is no longer a serious problem because no one believes that he is not corrupt and a puppet of the third world anti-American governments. The damage to Annan has been done by reporting in the MSM, and as such, has temendous impact. Bush did a similar thing when asked in the 1st debate to tell us why Kerry was not qualified to be president. Rather (gate) than taking the bait, he praised the man. In the same manner, he refused to endorse the Swift Boat Veterans, stating instead that Kerry had served this country honorably as a soldier in Vietnam. Bush understands that sometimes the best message is silence. The election proved him right. He is now been blessed with the oil-for-palace and corruption scandal which will gradually rip the heart out of the United Nations as long as Bush keeps silent about it. This President has the unusual ability to know when to fight and when not to. The Spector controversy is another example. Bush endorsed Spector when conservatives demanded his head. Now we see that the addition of two pro-life senators to the Judicary Committee will ensure that Spector keeps his promises. The clarity of his political vision with the ability to choose the time and place for combat has served this President well and will produce a lasting victory in the Middle East and the American government.
Not only that, but the Left has a vested interest in blaming Bush for whatever it can.
In their minds, Bush didn't have the diplomatic skills to build the type of coalition that THEY felt was "legitimate". If they bury this Oil-for-Palaces scandal, they don't have to admit that maybe, just maybe, these nations that opposed Bush (France, Germany, etc.) didn't want to back him because they had a sweet, under-the-table deal with Saddam and didn't want it to be ruined. They can continue to pretend that Bush is the problem, and that the war is "illegal" (never mind 17 Security council resolutions over 12 years, including 678, 687, and 1441 -- "and THIS time we really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it!!)
BECAUSE a republican is not running it.
That is exactly correct. France, Russia, and China were all working on lifting the sanction. They even employed England to help them convince the US to lift the sanction. In fact there was so much pressure on the US to lift the sanction from all over the world; we almost did.
If it doesn't make Bush or Haliburton look bad, the Media doesn't care. Period.
Pretty good for Harvard, eh?
Either this guy is a conservative, or there's a new breed of leftist brewing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.