2002 IN REVIEW
While The Media Slept

by Jeff Elliott

As happens every year, the U.S. press dodges some of the most important, complex stories. Blame this on the usual culprits: laziness, understaffed newsrooms, and a pack mentality driven by fear that they have to chase the same story as everyone else -- as well as presenting the same angle. Print media continues to follow TV's lead, where stories rarely stay in the news cycle very long unless they are visually compelling. Cop chases and police dogs, good: attorneys explaining billions of dollars stolen by white collar criminals, boring.

A quick example: On Nov. 4 -- the day before the Y2002 elections -- dozens of newspaper and broadcast media stories appeared about the sniper case, although there were no new developments (other than "police still investigating"). That same day, however, a court-appointed monitor issued a report that WorldCom had taken "extraordinary and illegal steps" to defraud investors, and that CEO Bernard Ebbers had tapped the company for $1 billion in personal loans instead of the $400M earlier reported. It was a stunning example of corporate crime operating at the highest levels -- yet not one newspaper in the United States covered this shocking news, other than to summarize the single wire service story that appeared.

Each of the stories below was a major 2002 scandal in its own right, and one or more will probably impact your life for years to come -- yet none of these stories received the hot, bright media scrutiny that it deserved. In most cases, further links within the stories provide even more background. (Some articles are available to subscribers only. Here is information on how to subscribe.)

10. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENRON SCANDAL? For a while, there, it seemed like the Enron story was another Watergate: Reporters looked at the personal relationship between Enron crook "Kenny-boy" Lay and President Bush and started asking the question that brought down Nixon: "What did he know, when did he know it?" It's still a vaild question -- but the press isn't asking it any longer.

    Whether Bush or others did favors for Enron is only one issue. The White House was clearly wired to Enron, and it's not the only place in Washington that is. The company shared its fleeting wealth with some 250 friends on Capitol Hill, and many of them sit on committees that will decide how aggressively Congress will investigate corporate fraud. The biggest scandal here is not personal corruption -- it's systemic corruption. It's how the very wealthy decide who gets to run for office in the first place -- and then who wins.

    How Enron Brokered Elections
    Can We Trust Congress To Investigate Enron?
    Bush Can't Escape Enron Scandal
    Call Bush And Company "Enron Conservatives"
    Web Site Heckles Repubs Over Enron Ties
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

9. JOHN ASHCROFT, ANTI-AMERICAN Almost every week in Y2002 brought some new outrage from Attorney General John Ashcroft -- who, it should always be remembered, lost his Missouri Senate seat to a dead man.

   Ashcroft has worked relentlessly to wipe out basic Constitutional freedoms -- yet still had plenty of time to intervene on behalf of favorite causes of the extreme right. When does the poor devil sleep? Lowlights of Ashcroft's recent work include quashing the Freedom of Information Act, encouraging racial profiling, pursuing death penalties in states without capital punishment (weren't conservatives supposed to stand up for state's rights?), and refusing to denounce a man who promised an abortion clinic killing spree. A quote from Woodrow Wilson fits Ashcroft perfectly: "Some people grow while in high office, others just swell."

   Ashcroft's Civil Rights Amnesia
   Ashcroft's Dangerous Arrogance
   The Day Ashcroft Foiled FOIA
   Ashcroft's Anti-Choice Views Guiding FBI, Justice Dept
   Ashcroft, Death Penalty Zealot
   Why is Congress Ignoring Ashcroft's Failures?
   The Job Has Become Too Big for Ashcroft
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

8. BUSH FOREIGN POLICY IN CHAOS Bush entered the White House as an isolationist whose only foreign policy was whining about failures of Clinton foreign policy. Now at the end of 2002, Bush has his very own foreign policy: Keeping most of the world confused and very pissed off.

   In one of the most bizarre incidents in U.S. diplomatic history, Secretary of State Colin Powell wandered the Mideast on an unfocused April peace mission even as members of the Bush Administration were contradicting his statements back home. But a low point came in May, when the White House rejected the principle of ending world hunger and starvation, fearing a "right to food" could mean the hungry could sue governments.

   U.S. Rejects "Right to Food" Concept at Global Summit
   Muddled Bush Foreign Policy Stirs Confusion
   Bush Budget: Pennies For Helping Poor Nations
   Bush Mideast Policy: Too Little, Too Late
   Bush Ignored Facts to Withhold UN Aid
   Poorest Nations Compete For Aid Under Bush Plan
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

7. THE BUSH/CHENEY SCANDALS AND THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" In 2002, no fewer than three books promised to dish the dirt on the "liberal media." All of the claims were just spinmongering, but the 2002 Credibility Gap Award goes to Crown Publishing. Ann Coulter's manuscript provided pages and pages of footnotes that easily showed she was lying -- that is, if anyone there had bothered to check her sources.

   But the real outrage is that the U.S. media gave both Bush and Cheney a free ride in 2002, even though new details surfaced about slimy business dealings that were far worse than Clinton's Whitewater "scandal." In 1990, for example, Bush authorized Enron-style bookkeeping to keep his company afloat; all things being equal, a special prosecutor should now be demanding impeachment because the president probably committed a felony.

   

   But a predominant message in 2002 was that Bush is now a Wartime President, so it's no longer patriotic and proper to poke fun at his malapropisms or garbled ideas. To veteran journalists, this all sounds uncomfortably like the media's big rollover two decades ago during the Reagan years. What happened then is well documented in the remarkable book by Mark Hertsgaard, "On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency" (sadly, now out of print). Although Reagan rarely would trip over his tongue like Dubya, the Great Communicator was infamous for making up facts, inventing quotes by historical figures, and on more than one occasion, confusing movie plots with real events. But after his first year in office , fewer of his gaffes appeared in the press. It wasn't that the President stopped inserting foot into mouth -- the press just stopped telling the public about it. The press also took a large step beyond just ignoring Reagan's fibs; a new, lower standard for presidential expectiations was put into place. Sound familiar?

   On Bended Knee II: The Media Treatment Of Bush
   Insider Deals Catch Up with Bush
   Can NY Times Hack Writer Save the White House?
   Cheney's Grimy Trail in Business
   Holding Dick Cheney "Accountable"
   Cheney's Scam
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

6. BUSH DECLARES WAR ON UNIONS The Terror War may be a fizzle (wasn't bringing in bin Laden dead- or- alive supposed to be Job One?) but Bush has made great progress in gutting the organized labor movement. Hey, priorities are priorities.

   One of the most overlooked stories of 2002 was the implication of the October presidential back-to-work order that reopened the West Coast shipping ports. Workers had been negotiating for months before the Bush Administration joined the bargaining table with its trump card: Get back on the job or the government would view any strike or interruption of work on the docks as a threat to national security. Bush had earlier forced Northwest and United airlines employees back to work, but this was the first time that he played the Terror card.

   The White House also wants to privatize up to half the federal workforce, and is currently supporting negotiations that could eliminate a broad range of civil service jobs.

   Why The Waterfront War Will Spread
   Bush Trying To Gut The Unions
   Bush Wants To Privatize Half Of Fed Workforce
   Trade Talks Seek To Eliminate Civil Service Jobs
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

5. A WORLD OF THIRST Efforts by the World Bank and multinational corporations to buy up water supplies was the #1 item on the Y2000 Project Censored list, and a MONITOR series two years before that (The Politics of Water) predicted that coming major wars would be fought over drinking water. In 2002, both stories escalated to a crisis stage.

   If war erupts in the Middle East, it may well start over a project by Lebanon to pump water from a river on the Lebanese - Israel border. Israel threatened to attack Lebanon in September if water begins flowing in the small-scale project, which would draw only enough water to supply about 20 villages. To Arab neighbors, Israel's threat is only its latest arrogant attempt to dictate use of the region's water supply. It is said that Israel will never strike a peace with Syria by returning the Golan Heights because it provides about a third of the water for the Sea of Galilee, the country's main water source. Another main source comes from under the West Bank; Israel claims 80 percent of that water for its exclusive use. Palestinians are only permitted a fraction of the water allotted to Israelis (about 42 liters a day vs. 310 liters) -- no trivial injustice.

   A closed-door World Bank trade court in 2002 heard the case of Bechtel Corporation vs. Bolivia, which will decide if the poor country will have to pay $25 million to the multinational corporation. Bechtel bought the water system for Bolivia's third-largest city in 2000, and promptly jacked up the rates beyond what Bolivians could pay. Forced to abandon the project a few months later, Bechtel sued for its investment cost as well as a portion of its expected profits. Activists point out that the World Bank has a conflict of interest in judging the case; Bechtel gained control of the water system because the Bank had threatened to withold debt relief money unless that city's public utility was privatized.

   Water Is Root Of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
   Who Owns the Water Owns Everything
   India, Pakistan Dispute Over Water Rights Behind War Fever
   Israel Threatens War With Lebanon Over Water Project
   French Corp Giants Push for Water Takeover
   Stakes Are High As U.S. Corp Sues Over Water In Secret Trade Court
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

4. WASHINGTON COMPLICITY IN ISRAEL'S SHAME Former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott resigned in disgrace after he was caught exposing his racist heart, but in May, House Republican leader Dick Armey said something far more outrageous: That Israel should kick out every last Palestinian and seize the West Bank and Gaza Strip as its own. And we wonder why the Arab world hates us.

   Last spring was probably the most violent period in Israel since the 1967 war. Israel countered an upswing in Palestinian suicide bombings by taking captive entire cities that were allegedly sympathetic to terrorists. UN and human rights workers were horrified by Israel's casual use of brutality against these civilian populations, including using food and water as weapons and taking hostages for human shields -- all violations of the Geneva Conventions. By the end of the year Israel was enclosing Palestinian areas in the West Bank with fences and barricades, thus completing Israel's metamorphosis into a full-on apartheid state, no different from South Africa at its despicable worst.

   America and Israel have always had a close relationship, but during 2002, each pandered to the other's darkest side. Bush needed allies in the Terror War, and right-wing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signed on early. Israel's hardball suppression of the Palestinians was also enthusiastically endorsed by the U.S. Christian Right, Bush's primary constituent base. Thus it was no real surprise that Bush was one of the very few world leaders who did not speak out against Israel's oppressive use of force.

   Bush was not the only Washington politico to stand silent as Israeli tanks rolled; virtually all of Washington has either kept quiet or applauded Israel's action. No fools, they; to oppose Israel can mean career suicide. In 2002, the pro-Israel lobby is credited with the defeat of Representatives Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama) and Cynthia McKinney (D- Georgia). Both were tarred for taking positions critical of Israel and saw their opponents benefit from a steady flow of nationwide contributions from Israel supporters. McKinney was also smeared shortly before the primary with newspaper articles that implied her some of her donations came from Arab-Americans with "suspected links to Middle Eastern terrorists or have voiced support for extremist groups" (Atlanta Journal Constitution) and "have made inflammatory statements about Jews" (Washington Post). Neither article examined the backgrounds of the out-of-state contributions to her opponent, however.

   Dick Armey Tells Palestinians: Get Out
   Christian Right Lobbying Hard For Ariel Sharon
   Pro-Israeli Money Defeats Pro-Palestine Candidates
   Bush Moving Closer To Ariel Sharon
   

   MORE ON ISRAEL'S STATE TERRORISM

   Sharon Wears The Oppressor's Cloak
   UN Shocked At Israel's Systematic Brutality
   Ariel Sharon: Israel Should "Exploit" Hebron Ambush
   Palestinian Town Faces Collapse as Israeli Siege Wears On
   Schools, Ambulances Not Spared in Israeli Attacks
   Eyewitness Dispatches: A Sickening, Bloodcurdling Horror
   Israel Taxes Humanitarian Aid to Palestine, UN Says
   Israeli Wall Around W Bank Hot Spots a Last Resort
   Israel Denies Education To Palestinians, UN Says
   Sharon Can't Supress News of Israel's Brutality
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

3. BUSH AND THE AFGHANISTAN OIL PIPELINE Soon after 9/11, a pair of French journalists shocked the world with a book claiming that the Bush White House blocked a FBI terrorism probe while it bargained with the Taliban to allow a trans-Afghanistan oil and gas pipeline. The book -- which has not been translated into English -- says that the last Taliban meeting was held just five weeks before the September terrorist attack, and that U.S. negotiators threatened them with military attack if they didn't play along. It was intriguing, but there was one major question unanswered: Why would Bush be so interested in a pipe running across Afghanistan?

   Then in February, MONITOR published an original investigative feature that looked closely at the proposed pipeline, and found that one of the main beneficiaries of the project would be a troubled gas power plant owned by Enron in India. We connected this with the discovery that the National Security Council had created a "Working Group" composed of officials from various Cabinet departments during the summer of 2001 to help Enron recover losses from its India investment. Also, memos have surfaced that show both Bush and Cheney were personally involved in the negotiations with India. Now there was a motive for Bush to have snuggled up to the Taliban. A new piece of the puzzle fell into place in December, as the leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan signed a deal for a pipeline that followed one of the routes mentioned in our article.

   Our prediction: Full disclosure of the Cheney/ Energy Task Force notes will show Bush was deeply involved with efforts to bailout Enron, including negotiating with the Taliban. The Enron connection may yet prove to be the folly that takes down the Bush Administration.

   The Puzzle of the Enron Coverups
   Bush Fuels Oil Pipeline Conspiracy Theory
   Bush Was Allied With Taliban Until August, Book Says
   Pursuit of Al-Qaeda May Lead to Russian Confrontion Over Pipeline
   Cheney, Energy Task Force Defies GAO
   Oil Consortium Seeks "Free Public Money" to Build Caspian Pipeline
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

2. THE ANTHRAX MYSTERY It's the most important unsolved mystery today: Who was behind the anthrax letters that caused the deaths of five people last year -- and why hasn't the FBI found the killer? Two important angles have been overlooked by the press:
   • This was not a kitchen-sink concoction that could have been made by Saddam, bin Laden, or any of the other usual suspects; this strain of anthrax came specifically from the Army bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, and that it had been weaponized using a highly sophisticated process. Only the U.S. government and a handful of our closest allies have access to this material and the technology used.

   • The only suspect named by the FBI has been Dr. Steven Hatfill, a researcher who worked at Fort Detrick in another division. The media tried to make Hatfill into another Gary Condit as talk show hosts pondered: Don't all these connections show that he must be the killer? What does he know, and why won't he talk to the press -- isn't that a sign he's hiding something? But no evidence has been released that shows Hatfill had the opportunity or the skills to make this lethal weapon. The U.S. press has ignored, however, incriminating details about his past -- that he had long boasted of being a terrorist and a member of neo-Nazi, white supremacist groups in the 1970s-1980s.

   Our prediction: The FBI is involved in a coverup that may involve Fort Detrick. Either lab security is so sloppy that materiel has been smuggled out -- or one of our allies is really an evildoer.

   The anhrax letters
   The Hatfill questions
   

   
   

1. THE PERMANENT WAR The president's "Axis of evil" remarks in the State of the Union speech suggests that Bush wants permanent war status -- that the Terror War can never really be won, and the war can (and will) drag on forever, fighting an ever elusive, ever unknown terrorist enemy. Also this: The Bush State of the Union speech didn't mention democracy once. Both offer a terrifying forshadow of the "permanent war" that George Orwell described in his apocalyptic novel, "1984."

   Our prediction (December 30, 2002): There will be no ground war with Iraq in 2003. It's no secret that the White House is obsessively watching the polls and shaping public policy to reflect those results and even after months of war drum beating, support for an Iraq attack is weak. Ordering soldiers into a possibly gruesome war would be a mad gamble; the best possible scenario would be a quick win with an Iraq blitzkreig, and even that could lead to political failure -- Bush can only look to Poppy's experience in Kuwait to understand that a big victory does not a reelection make. There's no predicting how a fight with Iraq could turn out, and this crowd doesn't like to throw dice. Better to drag the war on. And on. And on. Orwell would understand it perfectly.

   Oil and the Permanent War
   Howard Zinn: Elusive Enemy, Endless War
   The Bush Gang Dreams of Empire
   Bush Speech Subtext: We Will Find A New Enemy
   The Creepy Bush Plan for World Domination
   "It Can't Happen Here" ... Right?