Author: Jonathan Schwarz

I assume this lapse in protocol occurred because Peter Jennings was Canadian:

Four years ago, Barbara Walters, who calls Kissinger “the most loyal friend,” was entertaining Kissinger and his wife at a dinner party for a D.C. politician when ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who died last year, suddenly piped up, “How does it feel to be a war criminal, Henry?”

The subject of Kissinger’s past sins was very much in the air at the time. Judges in both France and Spain were seeking Kissinger for questioning as the long-simmering debate over his connection to Chilean general Augusto Pinochet’s brutal killing of dissidents in the seventies returned with a vengeance…

The question stunned the dinner guests, who included Time Inc. editor Henry Grunwald, who also died last year, and former ABC chairman Thomas Murphy. Grunwald told Jennings the comment was “unsuitable,” but Jennings persisted.

“I tried to change the subject, but it was a very uncomfortable moment,” says Walters. “[Kissinger’s wife] Nancy reacted very strongly and hurt.”

Kissinger said nothing.

What I especially like is the editor of Time, Inc. telling a journalist that asking a powerful figure a question about reality is “unsuitable.” Just imagine that said by hundreds of editors to thousands of reporters (as powerful new executives watch approvingly) and you will understand the U.S. media.

BONUS: Here’s David Broder getting an award at the National Press Club in 1988:

“I can’t for the life of me fathom why any journalists would want to become insiders, when it’s so much fun being outsiders—irreverent, inquisitive, incorrigibly independent outsiders, thumbing our nose at authority and going our own way.”

Broder then added, “I am Anastasia Romanov.”

I try not to read anything by Thomas Friedman, because his writing tends to make me wish I were dead. But Chris Floyd was man enough to read his latest column, and had this reaction:

This, ladies and gentleman, is what passes for Establishment thought on the most respected newspaper in the land. This complete and utter moral perversion — like unto an act of sexual congress with the beasts of the field — is now the conventional wisdom of the chattering classes, the “public intellectuals,” and the powerful elites whom they so cravenly serve. This blood-flecked drivel — a precise echo of the genocidal fury being voiced on what once was once considered the lunatic fringes of the far right — is now at the heart of American political life.

In the rest of his post, Chris also has some less positive things to say about Friedman.

Good news!

Every day it seemed more Iraqis woke up to death threats tossed into their carports. At first the death threats were handwritten, but as kidnappings became a daily occurrence, the kidnappers grew more brazen and organized. The terrorists now issue generic, computerized threats with the organization’s name as letterhead. Only the name of the victim is written by hand.

I’m pleased to see this leap forward in death squad productivity. But there’s still the drag on economic efficiency of writing the victims’ names in by hand. The solution is clear: tax cuts for death squads, which will allow them to make the capital investment to fully automate their death squadding.

And if that doesn’t do the trick, we should add Iraq to NAFTA, thereby lowering the barriers to trade in death squads, enlarging the death squad market and creating needed death squad economies of scale.

(You may think this is just a grim, tasteless joke, and completely unrepresentative of how many economists think. But it’s not.)

Wednesday night the Australian media reported that in early 2002 their ambassador to the U.N. was telling the Australian company AWB that a U.S. attack on Iraq was “inevitable.” The information appears in the minutes from a February 27, 2002 AWB board meeting. The minutes are listed on this page, and you can download them directly here (pdf).

Here’s the relevant text, from pages 10-11, with my emphasis added. For anyone curious, a screenshot of the memo itself can be found on my site. (AWB minutes are printed in Helvetica!)

Middle East situation

The Chairman met with the Australian Ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, who gave a synopsis of the current conflict in the Middle East. With regard to Iran, the Ambassador noted that, despite the President’s State of the Union address and reference to the “Axis of Evil,” most acknowledge that US/Iran relations are at an all time high. Accordingly, there appears to be an unofficial agreement between the two countries that despite the language of the President, these comments should be seen as for domestic consumption only. The Ambassador’s view was that it was unlikely that the war against terrorism currently being waged in Afghanistan would follow on to Iran in the current political environment.

However, with regard to Iraq, the Ambassador stated that he believed that US military action to depose Saddam Hussein was inevitable and that at this time the Australian Government would support and participate in such action. The Ambassador believed that the Iraqis grossly underestimated the US’ reaction to September 11 (with the consequent military response in Afghanistan) and that Iraq’s request to re-negotiate UN weapons inspectors was a direct result of their nervousness about US action. The Ambassador believed that the latest “olive branch” from the Iraqis was likely to stave off US action 12 to 18 months but that some military action was inevitable.

The Ambassador felt that engagement in Iraq would be similar to that currently being undertaken in Afghanistan (ie. heavy use of air support followed by deployment of ground troops). He undertook to ensure that AWB was given as much warning as would be possible under such circumstances but noted that in these instances often the Australian Government had little notification. However, he did note that Secretary Powell was running this campaign in a similar way that he ran the Gulf conflict which was to plan meticulously and not rush into conflict.

If George Bush had already decided to invade Iraq by February 2002, who do you think should have been told about it? I ask because apparently everyone on earth knew except regular Americans.

Everyone? you wonder. Including Australian wheat company executives?

Yes, including Australian wheat company executives:

A SENIOR diplomat tipped off wheat exporter AWB a year before the Iraq war that Australia would join the US-led invasion, new documents show…

The documents, released by the Cole inquiry yesterday, show Australia’s then UN ambassador John Dauth revealed the Howard Government’s position to former AWB chairman Trevor Flugge.

Mr Dauth briefed Mr Flugge in New York in February 2002 – 13 months before the invasion – and the details appear in minutes of AWB’s February 27 board meeting tendered to the inquiry.

“The ambassador stated that he believed that US military action to depose Saddam Hussein was inevitable and that at this time the Australian Government would support and participate in such action,” the minutes said…

“The ambassador believed that the latest olive branch from the Iraqis was likely to stave off US action (for) 12 to 18 months but that some military action was inevitable.”