We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By Paul Geary and Tom Elia
January 15, 2004
The New Editor
(This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.)
In its opposition to the War on Iraq, one of the most common refrains emanating from
anti-war opponents on the Left has been that the War in Iraq was "a war for oil."
This argument has taken two forms. In the first most primitive iteration of the argument, it is
explained that President Bush waged war on Iraq to enrich his friends in the oil industry and
to give the US control of Iraq's vast oil reserves.
The adherents of this belief (more like an article of faith to many on the far Left) eschewed
all other reasons given for going to war in Iraq, calling them "lies." To them, this war
represented a grab for Iraq's most precious natural resource by the politicians "bought and
sold" by "Big Oil."
The second more nuanced argument proffered by the Left (particularly the Democratic Party
candidates for president) had to thread the smaller eye of a needle -- not wanting to alienate
the fringes of their party, but at the same time trying to stay away from the
simple-mindedness of its "war for oil" argument -- instead choosing to try and link a specific
oil industry company, Halliburton (actually an oil services company), with its famous former
ties to Vice President Cheney, to no-bid contracts and war profiteering (as evidenced by the
recent claims of alleged overcharging on gasoline purchases by Halliburton totaling over $60
million).
This argument had the advantage of not sounding quite so simple as the first, but still held the
interest of the "war for oil" crowd (so important for keeping the base energized in the
upcoming elections) by involving a big, bad oil company complete with ties to an important
administration official.
Both arguments at least held their own -- with the second argument gaining political and
media traction -- until the entire premise was dealt some doses of reality in the last few
weeks.
The first "war for oil" argument was dispatched when, on January 8th, the Wall Street
Journal reported that the Bush administration plans to hand over the operation of the Iraqi oil
fields to a proposed Iraqi state oil company, modeled after those in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Presumably the Iraqis would take full control of the operation perhaps next summer when
the new government takes over.
This would mean that US oil companies would not control the oil -- or the profits coming
from its sale -- the Iraqis would.
The second argument was severely damaged when SEC documents released November 7th
revealed that Halliburton's activities in Iraq for the first three quarters of 2003 yielded just
$46 million in operating profits on $1.3 billion in sales, a margin of about 3.5%. (When
Cheney took office, Halliburton was trading around $50; in 2002 it traded around $10; it is
now trading about $28, tracking approximately with the rest of the stock market the last
twelve months.)
Then on January 7th the New York Times reported that the Defense Department doesn't
believe that Halliburton overcharged the military for gasoline (it was locked into a long-term
contract it had signed with a Kuwaiti firm when the price was higher).
Despite the fact that Democrats had charged Halliburton with profiteering, the company
made a 3.5% profit on all its business in Iraq for the first three quarters of the year and
wasn't guilty of "gouging the taxpayer" on the infamous gasoline deal.
If the Bush administration has been trying to help US oil companies in general, and
Halliburton specifically, it's not done a very good job so far.
However, compare these facts with what Democratic candidates for president have been
saying.
Howard Dean: "George W. Bush is preventing entire nations from bidding on contracts in
Iraq so his campaign contributors can continue to overcharge the American taxpayers."
John Edwards says he would end the "war-profiteering."
Dick Gephardt: "[The] policy in Iraq of putting the corporate special interests first is
unacceptable."
Wesley Clark said the president is "more concerned about the success of
Halliburton than having a success strategy in Iraq."
Unfortunately, it's become axiomatic that honest disagreement with administration policy isn't
enough even for prominent Democrats. The discourse has degenerated into a pitched battle
over who can convince us that the administration is fundamentally corrupt, and that George
W. Bush is a bad, bad man fighting for the oil profits of US firms.
No matter the facts.
Paul Geary and om Elia are both contributing editors for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers