At the same time Alan Greenspan is out defending the Bush administration from the "no blood for oil" crowd, a man accused of illegally buying and selling oil from Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime is being put on trial.
Looking at the case of Oscar Wyatt, one soon realizes that that Iraq war opponents were hardly the pure and innocent people that the media usually makes them out to be. The leadup to the Iraq war was hardly a struggle between peaceful, loving protesters and nefarious right-wing billionaires, in reality, there were people on both sides who saw Iraq as an opportunity to make money. Somehow, though, we never hear about the anti-war money men. This is odd because while we've heard endlessly about Vice President Cheney's connections to Halliburton, we've heard almost nothing about Oscar Wyatt's boast that he had persuaded Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy to speak out against the Iraq War. As TigerHawk puts it:In Oscar Wyatt's view, "no war for oil" means "fight no war so that we can get the oil." He understood that there was a much more direct path to control over Iraqi oil, and one that would have appeased those Democrats who opposed the war and whose hearts bled for the Iraqis suffering "because" of American sanctions.
No wonder this case is generating so little interest in the press, which is curiously uninterested in Wyatt's claim that he persuaded a U.S. Senator to speak out against the war. Only Reuters drew a line between Wyatt's bragging and a particular U.S. Senator -- Ted Kennedy -- and that was weeks ago. Stories published in the New York Times and elsewhere did not mention Kennedy by name, probably because editors figured he would have spoken against the war anyway. And he would have. But the Wyatt claim is evidence that Ted Kennedy damn well knows that oil interests would have much preferred cutting a deal with Saddam than invading his country. Has he ever said as much?
That is hardly Wyatt's only Democratic connection, though. Over the years, the rich Texas oilman has sent more than 70 percent of his campaign contributions to Democrats including presidential candidate Bill Richardson, West Virginia senator John Rockefeller, and Texas House member Gene Green. Not only have the media mostly ignored this important trial (in stark contrast to their obsession over the more Republican-oriented Enron), when they have covered it, they've very rarely mentioned Wyatt's Democratic ties.
This is something that in the interest of fairness needs to be fixed.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What can be said?
September 17, 2007 - 17:53 ET by heldmyw(INSERT SNARKY COMMENT ABOUT MSM 'FAIRNESS' AND FLYING PIGS.).
Well it's not like they
September 17, 2007 - 17:54 ET by KhyrisWell it's not like they have been hiding it. Think about how many times we've read the signs that say:
"No war for oil"
This wasn't a complaint, it was a plea:
No war, so instead we can make money from oil!
Mark Rich
September 17, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Cool ArrowThe Liberal view a la Mark Rich has traditionally been make as much money as you can off the deaths of American soldiers, but don't forget to send your trophy wife over to the White House for a pardon. "Nothing happened Jennifer, I mean Monica, I mean Hillary."
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
TRAITOR seeks to have eveidence removed from trial
September 17, 2007 - 18:19 ET by SportPoliticsOne diary entry also states that "Wyatt allegedly convinced Senator Edward Kennedy to deliver a speech against the war with Iraq," according to the motion. A spokesperson for Senator Kennedy did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Wyatt is also asking to have portions of a diary of a former Iraqi state oil agency employee, Mubdir Al-Khudhair, omitted. It suggests Wyatt provided the Iraq government with information about when the United States would invade and bomb Iraq and how many soldiers would be sent, according to the motion.
__________________________________
And we'll never hear where he got the invasion and troop numbers information to pass along as a TRAITOR, even though he was talking directly to Sen. Ted Kennedy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1445506920070814
Stuff like this is so outrageous, it really makes you wonder. After Sandy Berger's socks n drawers episode and his public outright lying, and slap on the wrist, I certainly believe Ted Kennedy passed along the info to the traitor, and knew it was going to Saddam.
Some might say that's crazy, but just look at Franklin D Roosevelt's #1 negotiator and right hand man Alger Hiss, turned out to be a communist agent.
Like father, like Ted
September 17, 2007 - 18:19 ET by Cool ArrowJoe Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Not hard to understand Teddy's ties to Radical Islam. He ain't no Catholic.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Ah, but. .
September 17, 2007 - 22:02 ET by FastEdhe knows how to tred water, I mean swim, ah, not get caught with a dying woman. BUT, he still gets elected - says something about the smarts of the bostonian crowd, I guess blue blood affects the brain.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Sport, and after everything
September 17, 2007 - 22:20 ET by Sonny LykosSport, and after everything you said, and how true it is, the ignorant masses will STILL vote a Dem into the White House.
Makes one shutter to think that no matter how much common sense one has, no matter how much knowledge of politics one has, the ignorant masses will still dictate your world and life - because they out number you.
True Sonny. Maybe we should
September 17, 2007 - 23:36 ET by RESTLESS 1True Sonny. Maybe we should file for minority status. Wonder how that would fly in liberal circles.
IMO, everyone who votes democrat should be charged with treason.