Jan 23, 2003 4:03 AM
|Condoleeza Rice sets her stall out and it appears reasonable:
editorial raises some relevant points re keeping the eye on the ball: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880372,00.html
Europe's not behind the US and UK who seem to be prepared to go it alone:
Powell says the US will take control of the Iraqi oil feild revenues after the war:
but US interest in oil fields may be linked to environmental and humanitarian concerns:
spin spin spin - any thoughts?
|spin+editorial excesses+disorganized executive branch=||sn69|
Jan 23, 2003 6:04 AM
|selling more copy!|
Jan 23, 2003 6:40 AM
|it actually makes me feel misinformed and cynical|
|I've got an interesting tool at my disposal||sn69|
Jan 23, 2003 7:05 AM
|We have a military site that is a daily synopsis of all of the related print media stories from the day before. They are categorized and organized. I can literally read two different stories by two reporters who attended the same DOD, DOS, DOJ,DOWhatever meetings, and it's striking how different the journalists' interpretations are. One will direct a Powell/Rice/Rumsie quote one way, and the other will cite the same quote 180 degrees out.
Still, it makes for an interesting read every morning and provides more clarity than the limited information sources that most people have.
Jan 23, 2003 7:28 AM
|maybe you could forward that stuff to me? :-)|
Jan 23, 2003 8:29 AM
|Unfortunately, it's run from an HTTPS portal, meaning you have to be on a military or government server to gain access. I could cut and paste, but that would take all day, and while I'm all for wasting time at the government's expense, it would bore the poo out of me. Sorry 'bout that.
Suffice it to say that it's fascinating to read two or more vastly different slants taken from the same press briefing or event, using the exact same quotes. Human nature? In part. Mostly, however, I think that stories are packaged to sell a product. I make that observation from personal experience--I was a journalist before I came in the Navy.
Don Henley was right with "Dirty Laundry."
|You misunderstood an important point||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 23, 2003 6:55 AM
|You missed something in the Boston Globe article. The US is not taking control of Iraqi oil revenues. The US plan is to put the oil revenues into a trust to help the Iraqi people, that is very different from the US taking control of oil field revenues. The revenues would be used towards inproving Iraqi infastrcture and humanitarian aid. When they say they wanted to control the oil feilds in the Guardian Editorial, it is to prevent Iraq from doing that they did in Kuwait when they set the wells on fire. It is to avoid an environmental disaster.
If Saddam is removed from power, there would be an occupation to help put a new government in place. There would probably be investments made in Iraq by US & British companies. THe US would probably also start to purchase oil from Iraqi sources as well.
Of course you will hear the anti-Bush people say we are just there to raid the oil reserves. THat is not based on fact though. It is just what they are trying to make people beleive. With the latest polls showing 67% of Americans supporting military action against Iraq, their arguments are largely falling on deaf ears.