Here's What's Left: Fair and Balanced

« Still more torture | Main | Saddam and Osama want to make Social Security go broke »

January 14, 2005

Fair and Balanced

Media Matters gets the prize. The other day I offered "10 points to anyone finding a conservative pundit out there still claiming the WMD moved to a different country." After the WaPo reported the following:

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.[...]

And to precisely no one's surprise the guilty person is a Fox News personality. Bret Baier:

Officials are also confirming that Charles Duelfer, the man who headed up the search for weapons of mass destruction, is back in the U.S. They say he will be adding some additional information to the interim report.

But basically, the September report will be the final conclusion, and that is that no stockpiles were found; Saddam had the ability to start up some of these programs quickly; and that there are still suspicions that many weapons made their way into Syria before the war began.

I suppose if I were naive I would be shocked that the republican coporate media was using ostensibly objective news reporters to convey their talking points. Because that's even more dispicable and unethical than having Sean Hannity do it. But hey, it's Fox News.

-- Michael

Posted on January 14, 2005 at 12:53 AM | Permalink

Comments

Do you get it?

What were the three countries in the original 'axis of evil'?

Iraq, Libya and Korea.

Of course the Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction' that never existed have moved to Libya. That is our next target.

Take out a map. Here is one on the Internet:

Global Sources of Oil.

Notice that the United States, by colonizing Iraq, now has a foothold in the center of the world's largets oil reserves. Also notice that the next largest reserves are in Latin America, a region that has long lived under the thumb of Uncle Sam. Then the third largest reserves are in Africa. Hmm.

Libya has three wonderful characteristics. First, it is on the coast of the African continent and oil can be shipped directly out of its port. Second, it is ruled by an unpopular despotic regime with links to terrorism that can be easily toppled and even justified with some credibility for doing so. Third, Libya is weak.

For some insight into the importance of Libya's oil production, try LIBYA. Fourth largest in Africa. Hmm.

Next in line is the former Soviet Union. Well, we are working on it but the Russians and the Chinese are not going to give up their oil easily, and they both have nukes. North America is next in line, and that is already ours. Who is next? Asian Pacific. AHA!

Korea is another oil gem. Check out Are American oil industrialists deciding Foreign Policy for North Korea? Aha! Halliburton! Texans! Bush/Cheney and secret DOE meetings crafting our energy policy!

Honestly, folks, all I did was a couple of trivial web searches. This is really just too easy.

It is all about oil. It was always about oil.

Rumor has it that Operation Iraqi Freedom was originally Operation Iraqi Liberation, until someone realized that the acronym was OIL. My contention is that the so-called 'axis of evil' is really an 'axis of oil'.

This is pathetically transparent.

Posted by: Cheryl | January 15, 2005 at 10:44 PM

I think the axis was Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Iran and North Korea are probably genuinely at the top of the list of developing nations who are developing nuclear and missile technology (not that there's anything wrong with that) and are not US allies.

Iraq was thrown into this list to make people think Iraq had WMDs.

I don't think there's any likelihood that the US will attack all the members of the axis -- North Korea anyway. So although Iran has oil I don't think oil was the basis of membership in the axis.

Libya has been trying to get on with the EU better for a while now and recently made public some of it's old nuclear program that it had ceased. Bush claimed this as evidence that war mongering helped prevent escalation which was a lie - Libya had been negotiating peacefully with the EU for a long time to get to that point.

I do think Bush has been pressing in on other oil producing countries. Most notably his failed coup attempt against Chavez, but also the encroachment of US forces into former soviet states near the Caspian and the invasion of Afghanistan.

Posted by: DavidByron | January 16, 2005 at 01:45 PM

(drawl) Oh, did I say Iran? I meant Lib-ya. How embarassin'. You caught me. Maybe this is the first 'mistake' I can truly admit to as having been made, you know that maybe my advisers misled me into having missspoken about it when I confused I-ran and Lib-ya.

I had always assumed that the 'axis' was really a 'crapsis'. Guess I just switched the two in my mind, the same way that I switched Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Sorry people, keep getting confused on who my enemies are. I have been well-trained, I guess.

Mea culpability.

Posted by: Cheryl | January 17, 2005 at 05:59 PM