- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq
appears to have placed explosives at the Kirkuk oil fields in northern
Iraq to destroy them if a U.S. invasion occurs, U.S. officials said on
Monday.
-
- "There are indications that has taken place,"
one official said in response to a question whether explosives had been
placed in the oil field.
-
- The official, who did not reveal the source of the intelligence,
added this had occurred "recently."
-
- In Baghdad, an oil ministry official denied Iraq has
placed explosives at the Kirkuk fields.
-
- "Iraq is keen to defend its oil wells and it is
illogical that we burn our oil wells with our own hands," Oil Undersecretary
Hussein Suleiman Al-Hadithi told Reuters.
-
- A U.S. defense official said the Iraqis had also been
seen moving explosives toward oil fields in the south as well as the north
in the oil fields. "They have moved explosives that make us suspicious
of their intentions," the defense official said.
-
- The United States has been building forces in the Gulf
region for a possible war against Iraq over its weapons program. Officials
have repeatedly accused the Iraqis of planning a "scorched earth"
campaign without showing how they know Baghdad's intentions.
-
- Iraq set fire to oil fields in Kuwait as it was driven
out of the country by a U.S.-led coalition in 1991.
-
- "We certainly have very serious concerns about Saddam
Hussein setting fire to the oil fields," another senior U.S. official
said.
-
- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2355866
-
-
- Comment
-
- From David H Gretick
- 3-11-3
-
- This article from your site caused me a massive eye-rolling
and impromptu editing:
- =
- Signs Of Explosives At Iraqi Oil Fields
- 3-10-3
-
- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq appears [vague] to have placed
explosives at the Kirkuk oil fields in northern Iraq to destroy them if
[vague]a U.S. invasion occurs, U.S. officials [whom, exactly?] said on
Monday.
-
- "There are indications [like what?] that has taken
place," one official [whom, exactly?] said in response to a question
[asked by whom, and why?] whether explosives had been placed in the oil
field [Officials have already stated that explosives were placed in the
oil field--that's the whole premise of this article!] .
-
- The official [oh, I give up], who did not reveal [why
not?] the source of the intelligence [Uncle Barney? A neighbor? The voice
in his/her head?], added this had occurred "recently." [meaning,
"since we have perceived that there is a differing opinion that has
been expressed in other media 'recently'," yes?]
-
- Okay: a month ago or so a military deepthroat comes out
and says that the oil well sabotage during G.W. I was a deliberate U.S.-caused
eco-disaster, designed to impress Hussein's image of a mad despot on
U.S. citizenry. What would possess someone to fabricate this information?
It's an odd story, but it did not come on the heels of 12 years
of public dissent about who started those fires. No, these past 12
or so years, nobody had any doubt that Iraq did.
-
- Next the public learns that Haliburton, (what!!!????!!!???)
of all companies, has been contracted to extinguish the well fires that,
evidently, are almost certain to occur once the war that is almost
certain to occur begins.
-
- So now we have this above report. It validates the assertions
of the military deepthroat because, unprovoked, it aims to discredit any
dissent that the oil well fires were begun by anyone other than Iraq forces.
The deepthroat's admission could have simply remained an independent,
obscure piece of information. However, the timing of the above article,
along with the way it obfuscates naming any sources involved (save its
corporate name, 'Reuters') should raise the "fraud" flag in the
minds of readers and real journalists alike.
-
- The article itself is vague in all aspects
('Iraq appears...," "U.S. officials...," [Uh, you mean Joe,
the guy who has the weiner concession on Capitol Hill? He has a badge], "There
are indications...," "The official, who did not reveal the source
of the intelligence..." [maybe they mean Joe the weiner guy this
time], "...this had occurred 'recently.'") thus validating this
media vendor's practice of horrible journalism at the least, and complicity
in toeing the party line at the worst.
-
- Misleading reporting such as above contributes
to the avalanche of half-truths and disinformation that flood the
public daily. Eventually the falsehoods can become so numerous and
indistinguishable that they form the hazy basis for what we accept as the
"truth." Reader beware.
-
|
