Didjya hear? The Iraq War was really about... OIL! (Really!)

Lately I've been disturbed by how some journalists hide behind standards so much that they can't state an obvious truth.

I'll refer to one specific example, a paragraph deep in the New York Times article, Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back by Andrew E. Kramer on June 19, 2008. The article explains how after several decades absent from oil-rich Iraq, huge oil firms are gearing up to return thanks to contracts offered by the US-backed Iraqi government.

The article is some fine reporting until we get to this contender for Understatement of the Century: "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; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry."

In other words, we're still not quite sure that the USA vs. Iraq wars that began almost 20 years ago with King Bush the First are about oil. In fact, we're not sure even though the same article states the contracts the US oil firms have been awarded are "no bid" contracts, and all such contracts, by some irrelevant coincidence, went to American firms.

Yes, there have been "parts" of the American public who suspected the Iraq War(s) were simply to secure oil. Being one of those people, I can also tell you that I have another sneaking suspicion that up is up and down is down. In addition, I want to know what parts of the American public did NOT have the suspicion that military action in Iraq was about oil. Why? Because I need to alert them to the fact that my pubic hairs are currently on sale for a limited time, each one guaranteed to bring good luck, for a mere $10,000 each.

Even some people who were pro-Iraq War back in 2003 before this phase of it started, those few who were bluntly honest said, "Hey we need the oil, so we've got to take it." Regardless of pro or anti war stance, only people who were being deliberately dishonest or diplomatic to the point of dishonesty said the war was NOT about oil.

However, let's give the NYT a benefit. Maybe we walk in different circles. Maybe the people I hang with are distrustful of lies told to them by habitual liars. Maybe my crew is an extra paranoid bunch and when a guy whose family has gotten wealthy off oil decides to launch a war for an oil rich country, well, we're naturally going to be suspicious. It's what we do. Maybe it's just that I associate with folks who, after the 100th different lie is blown apart and the 1,000th new revelation that oil is being protected above everything else, always cry, "I give up. This darn war is about oil no matter what they say."

Anyway, it's not just the NYT I want to lash with my witty sarcasm, it's the standards of mainstream journalism. How is it that they are so timid? How is it that the New York Times, one of the most powerful media outlets in the world, can't just say it for what it is? How is it that when someone spouts bullshit in my life I can just say "You're a liar," but in the media world, they will say anything but? In fact, I'd like to try an experiment. I wonder if Bush just came out and said "I'm a liar," if the NYT would still hesitate to call him a liar.

Okay, so maybe the comparison is oversimplified, but why can't journalism take the bullshit-calling technology of average folk and apply it to their life? Why can't the NYT just say, "The fact that the no-bid contracts are going only to American companies from Iraq's American-advised Oil Ministry is another point in favor of those who believe the Iraq War was primarily about oil."

Maybe I'm not even living up to my own standard here, so let me call it: The President has the corporate media where he wants them. They can't criticize him too harshly or he'll just refuse to talk to them. Then how will they write the story? So the press tip-toes lightly to preserve that all-important access.

That's why I think there should be mandated press conferences with the President, with people selected at random, not reporters, given access. The whole concept of a "Washington Press Corps" to me smells anti-democratic. Of course they're going to form an ass-kissing clique. Those randomly selected citizens would be able to ask whatever question they like and the whole thing would be televised.

The random selection of the participants would be key. Meaning, they would have to be stocked with real people, not obvious tools as in a bogus McCain "town hall" meeting.

Until the world accepts my superb idea, we can rely on big media for their access to the powerful, but we sure can't rely on them for a tough analysis. For that, I'll turn to blogs and internet forums.

===
Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.