At
NYU,
Galbraith's Kurdish Oil & Abrams' Contra Conviction
Unmentioned
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
April 5 -- With Elliot Abrams slated to debate Peter
Galbraith Tuesday on whether America's global wings should be
clipped, moderated by ABC's John Donvan for the Intelligence Squared
series, certain basic facts were expected to come out.
Elliot
Abrams was
found guilty -- and later pardoned -- for misleading Congress about
Iran - Contra. More recently, Peter Galbraith's financial interest in
oil in northern Iraq's Kurdistan region was exposed by the Norwegian
and then US press. (Full disclosure: Inner City Press wrote about
it, on this site.)
But
neither fact
was mentioned even when Galbraith, hiding in plain sight, asked why
the US hadn't just left Kurdistan alone, since “it was working.”
For him, clearly.
This
is what
happens when you set up a debate between people with similar Achiles
Heels. With Mutually Assured Destruction, each debater clips his
wings. But where was the moderator? Where was this Intelligence,
Squared?
The
program for the
event, held in NYU's Skirball Center, listed among “Bright”
donors Mort Zuckmerman, and among advisors Fareed Zakaria. So where
was the journalistic impulse?
Donvan
asked the
audience for faux applause for rebroadcast on Bloomberg television.
Eliot Cohen said his non-clipping side should win because on the
other wise would be Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez. Lawrence Korb played
the churlish accountable to Galbraith's oil man feint. Ultimately
the two Elliots won. Truth and full disclosure, however, were each
ill served.
All
four panelists
said they supported US involvement in Libya, though the wing clippers
said they agreed that no ground troops should be used. But what about
arming the rebels, and Obama (and Cameron's) position that they can,
despite the arms embargo in UN Security Council Resolution 1970, even
as modified by Resolution 1973? America's wings clipped, indeed....
* * *
At
UN,
Susan
Rice is Asked About Obama Order for CIA in Libya: Were Council
Resolutions
& Members Skirted?
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
30 -- While the Obama
administration argues that the
UN Security Council resolutions on Libya provide the “flexibility”
to allow arming of the rebels, a new
question emerged on Wednesday.
After
US
officials
told the press that Obama signed a finding two or three weeks ago
authorizing Central Intelligence Agency activities in Libya, Inner
City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice on camera if that complied
with the UN resolution, and whether it was or should have been
disclosed to other Security Council members.
Ambassador
Rice
said
she would not comment on intelligence matters, that President
Obama said yesterday he has “not made any decision” on arming the
rebels, has not “ruled anything in or out” but is “considering
all forms of potential assistnace to the opposition.”
Inner
City
Press
began to ask as a follow up whether the US thinks that arming the
rebels is permitted by the resolution or requires a ruling or new
resolution. But Rice moved on to a question about the visa
status of
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, click here for that Inner City Press
story.
Rice, Obama & Clinton, negotiation of
1970/1973 & "finding" for CIA in Libya not shown
Moments
later
off
camera Susan Rice summoned Inner City Press and said that “we have
not made any decision” about arming the rebels. She said she had
not seen the story quoting US officials about Obama signing the
finding allowing CIA action in Libya.
Russian
Ambassador
Vitaly
Churkin told Inner City Press that the resolution do NOT
permit arming the rebels, adding that the it “was the American who
asked for the arms embargo.” How will he and other Security
Council members react to the US officials' quotes about Obama
authorizing CIA action in Libya, right while Security Council
resolutions were being negotiated? Watch this site.
From
the
US
Mission to the UN's transcript:
Inner
City
Press:
There are reports that President Obama signed a finding
allowing the CIA to assist the Libyan rebels. Does this in any way
implicate the two resolutions, including the arms embargo in 1970
that was modified by 1973? Is this something that you disclosed to
other Council Members? Does it raise issues under the various
prohibitions of the resolutions?
Ambassador
Rice:
Well,
first of all, obviously, as is longstanding U.S.
practice, I’m certainly not going to comment on any intelligence
matters. I will reaffirm what President Obama said yesterday which
is that we have not made any decision about whether the United States
will provide arms to opposition elements in Libya. We have neither
ruled it in, nor ruled it out. We are considering all forms of
potential assistance to the opposition from humanitarian, which we
are already providing, to political and other forms of support.
, 
