Not for long!

Why isn't the full UNSCAM affair being reported in most newspapers? True, the New York Times has reported it, but unless they sneaked it in somewhere in the classified ad section, I can't find it in today's [April 21, 2004] Philadelphia Inquirer. (I looked three times, and cannot find it in Sections A, B, C, D, or E.)

Doubting my sanity, I visited the Inquirer's web site, where I found what I have to assume will be tomorrow's "news" -- a thoroughly lame write-up -- which nowhere reports that the corruption involved Kofi Annan himself. Instead, Annan is cast as distant, dignified, and a little pained:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that he took seriously allegations that U.N. officials had taken money and he expected the investigation to uncover the truth. He wouldn't comment directly on new reports that several unnamed U.N. officials could be implicated for taking kickbacks from the program.

Annan launched an internal inquiry in February but canceled it in March to allow a broader, independent examination.

"I want to get to the truth and I want to get to the bottom of this so I am happy they are taking on this assignment," Annan said.

The true story is far more outrageous -- and much more damning than most people would have dreamed possible. It reaches the highest levels of the UN heirarchy -- Kofi Annan himself, and the story is a lurid tale of international, blood-soaked kleptocracy in action. (United Thieves?)

Charged with nepotism and cronyism, Annan, 64, has been emasculated into announcing an independent commission to investigate the theft that has invited vicious catcalls against him for "an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks." He has now named the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to head the probe. (via Glenn Reynolds.)

Although Sevan has been on leave of absence from the UN since the scandal broke early this year, his boss Kofi Annan has resisted investigating what is probably the biggest aid heist of all time until a couple of weeks ago. In this kind of situation, normally the media would be on his neck, calling for the most thorough investigation possible; but thus far, with the exception of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and a handful of others, they have been curiously silent.

The election.

Think about it. A primary theme in what passes for a campaign so far is the notion that the evil Bush "defied" the UN. This argument, if it is to prevail with American voters, must rely on the integrity of the UN. If the UN is seen as without integrity, ordinary voters might conclude that George W. Bush did the right thing if the Democrats' argument that he defied them sinks in. Hence, the "little people" must be told as little as possible about this outrageous scandal.

If this scandal isn't squelched -- and fast -- I suspect we won't be hearing as much about the "evil" Bush and the "good" UN.

But maybe I'm being naive.

UPDATE: More naiveté? I just found this at JohnKerry.com:

Kerry also said the Bush administration walked away from negotiations at the United Nations when there was still a chance to build a united international front against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

"I talked to [UN Secretary General] Kofi Annan the Sunday before the president decided to go to war, and I knew at that moment in time that the Russians and the French were prepared to in fact make a further offer," said Kerry, referring to two of the leading nations that opposed the US-led war. "And the administration in fact informed Kofi Annan, `Sorry, the time for diplomacy is over.' Had I been president of the United States, I would have explored what those possibilities were."

UPDATE: Now I see signs that both parties have received campaign donations from recipients of the Oil-for-Food bribes. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) I sure hope that the total amount of money involved wasn't enough to trigger a bipartisan coverup. (History shows that bipartisan coverups work.)

FOLLOW UP [April 22,2004]: Today's Philadelphia Inquirer does NOT contain the story I cited above. There's NOT ONE WORD on the UNSCAM affair. Why then, does the story appear at their web site? So they can let their more web-savvy readers know they know about the story? I am glad I don't rely on my daily paper to find out what's going on in the world, or I might think all is well at the UN.....

QUERY: Is there such a thing as pretending to report a story?

MORE: Why isn't Drudge on top of this story?

The Washington Times?

Gee, maybe there is something bipartisan going on.....

UPDATE [April 22, 2004]: The Wall Street Journal has buried the story in the want ads. The foreign press (at least in Britain) is reporting this story. And there's now a blog by Stephen Sherman devoted to this one issue! And this post is giving me heart! (I'll give the "Inky" folks another couple of hours to answer my email, and then I guess I'll just have to post it here.)

Q. What do you call someone who wants to get important news stories, but finds himself thwarted?

A. A "conspiracy theorist."

MORE [April 22, 2004]: Bloggers take heart! Here's Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor of US News:

[T]he U.N. got in on the action. It received administrative fees of about $2 billion for the program, which may be fair, but the senior U.N. official in charge of the program, Benon Sevan, is reported to have received 11.5 million barrels himself. Cotecna, a Swiss-based firm hired by the U.N. to monitor the import of the food and medicine to Iraq, hired Kojo Annan, the son of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a consultant during the period when the company was assembling and submitting bids for the oil-for-food program. All of these coincidences were reported by Claudia Rosett in the National Review. None, surprisingly, were disclosed by the U.N., Cotecna, or the senior or junior Annan. The imposition of so-called smart sanctions on Iraq, several years after the end of the 1991 Gulf War, allowed Saddam to purchase items besides food and medicine. But some of the things approved by Kofi Annan seem pretty far afield. There was the $20 million he authorized for an Olympic sports city for Uday Hussein, Saddam's reprehensible (and now deceased) oldest son. And then there was the $50 million for TV and radio equipment for Saddam's ham-handed propaganda machine. This is food? Gives new meaning to Kofi Annan's statement, in 1998, that Saddam was a man "I can do business with." And how.

All of this would seem to raise a few questions about the intense opposition to the American intervention in Iraq within the U.N. Security Council, and particularly from Paris and Moscow. In one way or another, the U.N. stonewalled, until now, a serious independent investigation of the oil-for-food program. To his credit, Kofi Annan is now supporting such an investigation, but the Security Council has not approved it, and France and Russia--surprise!--are actively blocking it. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has agreed to head the inquiry, but only if it is blessed by a Security Council vote. Absent such a vote, there is still an awful lot of explaining to be done.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on the Inky!

WHAT THE HECK! I think I've waited long enough. Here's the email I sent to the Inquirer's National/Foreign Editor Ned Warwick and Deputy Editor/Copy Chief of the National/Foreign Desk Richard Barron.

Subject: Missing news item
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:52:06 -0400
From: Eric Scheie
To: Ned Warwick, Richard Barron

Dear Messrs Warwick and Barron:

You are listed respectively as the National/Foreign Editor and the Deputy Editor/Copy Chief of the National/Foreign Desk. I have a simple question which I hope you can answer.

I am trying to locate the hard copy of an article which appears at the Inquirer website:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/8478139.htm

Title: Probe Opens on Iraq Oil-For-Food Program

By Dafna Linzer
(AP)

This is a very important story, but the problem is, I cannot find it in yesterday's paper, and I was hoping someone there could help me. I am thinking I must be missing something, and I just wondered if either one of you might be able to tell me whether (and where) it appears in the actual newspaper.

Thank you,

Eric Scheie

UPDATE: Not a word in reply from either of those gentlemen, nor were any of my four phone calls returned.

In addition, there was not one word in today's Inquirer either -- about the biggest story this year.

I have to say, I've been around a while, and I have never seen a more shocking example of non-reporting of a major, breaking, story.

Really, it reminds me of Pravda.

MORE [April 23, 2004]: While I still can't find this story at Drudge, The Washington Times features this editorial by Helle Dale. But there's a refusal to do the most basic reporting in most quarters, and I smell a bipartisan coverup.

RELATED "NEWS" NEWS [April 23, 2004]: Jon Lauck, who runs a blog devoted to South Dakota's senatorial race, documents outrageous bias by reporter Dave Kranz of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader and makes an important point about the role of local newspapers (like mine):

The newspaper's reporting and selection of stories determines, to a large extent, the information available to the citizens in the state. The Argus, in short, is critical to the proper functioning of the democratic process in South Dakota, as I've noted. This site is completely dedicated to analyzing the most important US Senate race in the nation, one which could determine the ability of legislation to move through the US Senate, the world's oldest deliberative body, and therefore the course of American democracy. The Argus, in other words, has a serious responsibility to properly report on political matters relating to the candidates, Tom Daschle and John Thune.

Beck also said that the criticism was "crap" and driven by a "violent" internet "cabal" of "yahoos" and "jokers," who are full of "hatred" and "vitriol" and lacked "guts" because they hid "behind their computer screens" and wouldn't face him "man to man." Beck then went on to highlight the importance of debating issues "without calling each other names."

As South Dakota Politics has noted, Beck did not address the specific criticism of the bloggers.....

Why won't Beck deal substantively with the issues that are presented by the existence of the Bombshell Memos? Why won't he at least offer an argument? As caller Steve Kirby told Beck at the end of the program, in much more measured tones than Beck was ever able to muster, the Argus Leader has a perception problem. Name-calling and dangling red herrings may be an effective way to manage the employees of the Argus Leader, but such tactics won't cut it beyond the confines of the Argus Leader building in downtown Sioux Falls.

Beck appears to want to talk about the Bombshell Memos. The problem is that he wants to have a debate about the memos behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of informed readers. That would be a worse than useless exercise. The Argus Leader has a very public perception problem, and the only way to deal with the problem is to have a public debate. If Randell Beck wishes to have a debate about the information that is published on the blogs, that would mean that Randell Beck would have to specifically cite what website he is referring to when he talks about them. I fear that Randell Beck is afraid to reference specific blogs because that will allow his readers and his listeners to come to these blogs and find out for themselves what we're saying. At that point, these readers will find out that what Randell Beck is saying about the blogs isn't true, and that our criticism of the Argus Leader is substantive criticism backed by solid evidence, with reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. That is much more than these readers got yesteday from the executive editor of the most influential newspaper in the state.

Oh, and in case you didn't know it, my name is Jason Van Beek. Just like it says below every post I write.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Radio would be willing to see any of the "anonymous" bloggers he's talking about? That would be Jason Van Beek, Steve Sibson, Jon Lauck, Pejman Yousefzadeh, Robert Musil [actually a pseudonym-- ed.], John Hinderaker, Andrew Sullivan, Jeff Gannon, Glenn Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, and myself just to name a few. Are these the people who "hide behind rocks?" I don't think so.
(From Pejmanesque via the InstaCabalista himself, Glenn Reynolds.)

I am sorry to see similar things happening in South Dakota, where I had a great time last summer.

THE PRESSURE CONTINUES (at least internationally...): Scott Burgess at the Daily Ablution is doing a splendid job of keeping track of stories all over the world. He's offers a somplete synopsis:

word counts are exclusive of headlines, captions, callouts, and items consisting entirely of "round-ups" of other papers' coverage.