Wednesday, February 02, 2005

More Terrible Reporting offers an article stating Documents: U.S. condoned Iraq oil smuggling: "Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein's regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq's neighbors."

The one thing I wanted to know once I saw this headline was "under what administration?" Does the article say that anywhere? No, of course not, despite the fact that it is an important piece of information. If you just read the headline, and the first few paragraphs, the immediate implication is: we have no right to be upset about Oil-for-Food scandals, because we did nothing to stop it.

Well, there's a problem. This happened under the Clinton administration, not the current one. We also let Bin Laden go under Clinton—does that mean he shouldn't be punished now? There is a reason that Bush was elected, there is a reason that he was reelected, and it has something to do with the fact that there's no ambiguity about such things anymore—we simply won't tolerate it.

No comments: