Evil US Contractors Extort $1.9 Billion from Iraqis

Today's Seattle Times front-page headline is yet another text-book example of how the Times can present the news in such a way that subtly shades the story. The headline says, "$1.9 Billion in Iraqi Money Going to US Contractors". This story tells us simply that many US contractors involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were paid with proceeds from Iraqi oil sales. Big deal. In fact, I'm pleased that so much of the cost of rebuilding has been paid for by the Iraqis themselves.

But the fact that the very first word of the story is "Halliburton" tells you clearly the Times believes something fishy MUST be going on. This is reinforced by the fact that the story is front-page, above the fold with a big headline. This reminds me of the story the Times did about a month ago, "Bush Will Not Replace Cheney". By simply reporting the story as important news, certain conclusions will likely be drawn. In the case of the Iraq story, the Times is obviously suggesting some sort of impropriety on the part of the Bush administration.

As I stated above, I believe the fact that so much money came from Iraqi sources is clearly a good thing. In reading through the story, the Times states that there was little bidding before contracts were awarded. Also, the Times suggests that there was something wrong with the bulk of the contracts going to US firms (as opposed, for instance, to Iraqi companies). It seems to me that there was not time for a long bidding process as Iraq had a great many needs after the war. And as far as the companies being almost exclusively US, well, in the case of Halliburton, there just aren't a whole lot of companies that can do what they can do. Also, US occupation forces were certainly more comfortable doing business with US firms, many of whom they had likely done business with in the past. And lastly, what the heck is wrong with the victors of the war benefiting? US soldiers fought and died in Iraq, I frankly would be rather upset if French companies had made a bunch of money in rebuilding.

This story should be a small item in the Iraq digest section, not a headline. By presenting it in such a way, the Times is suggesting some sort of scandal or impropriety that does not exist. Though there does not appear to be any factual errors in the story, I believe this is clearly an example of liberal bias.