Breakenridge has certainly done his homework.
Posted at 2007-04-19 07:51:38 [PermaLink]Gleeson's column ran in my local Sun Media paper yesterday.
His column previous to this one, titled "War on Terror looks like a fraud," was nearly as odiously dishonest. Apparently the WoT isn't just a fraud because it was "all about oil," but also because of Afghanistan's strategic location as a passageway for a natural gas pipeline.
[External Link]
Gleeson also managed to set up his next column (the one linked to in Damian's post), with this concluding passage:
"With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates."
I'm sure the irony of Gleeson's own considerable contribution to the brain-dead state of the media is completely lost on him.
Memo to Gleeson: Never point to Eric Margolis and say to the bartender, "I'll have what he's having."
Gleeson makes a good point when he says "[people are] seriously disputing the 'militant Islam' spin." I certainly haven't seen any examples of militancy on the part of Islamic fanatics.
s/o
A letter sent to the Ottawa Sun Wednesday and not published:
'John Gleeson, in his fanciful column "Scholars debate 9/11 findings" (Apr 18), essentially endorses the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. To support this theory he refers to the views of a former physics professor, a professor (speciality unnamed) at a chemistry-physics research group, a philosophy professor and a former theology professor. When Mr Gleeson writes a column on Islamic extremism, I expect him to quote professors of Islamic studies, political science, physics and biochemistry. The latter two especially will be able to help enlighten readers about al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and so on.'
As to piplines, another unpublished letter to the Ottawa Sun:
'Eric Margolis, in his column "Afghanistan fight will only get tougher (April 15), raises yet again the ludicrous idea that the international effort in that country is all about oil. He writes: "What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan..."
What nonsense. Afghanistan in no oil corridor of any sort. Most Central Asian oil is in Kazakhstan, far to the west and Kazakhstan has no need for Afghanistan as a pipeline route. Kazakh oil is exported via Russia and to China. It will now be shipped, following an agreement with Azerbaijan last year, across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and onward by pipeline to a Turkish port on the eastern Mediterranean. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, which have much smaller oil reserves than Kazakhstan, equally have no need for any Afghan pipeline should they ever become major oil exporters.
References:
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
[External Link]
And this was the final para of a letter the Toronto Star did publish on Feb. 16:
'Quest for Afghan oil false bogeyman
...
There is a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and (maybe) India. But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest, and such a pipeline is not likely to be built for quite a while. In any case most of the gas would be for Pakistani or Indian consumption.
Reference:
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa