Oil-based Framing

What never-ending news story does this describe?

1. Political machinations lead to decisions involving food and fossil fuel.
2. The combination shapes global socio-political direction.
3. Small segments of the populace end up receiving many of the subsidies
4. Although the initial intent proved admirable, the long-lasting effects may turn out a wash.
5. Consumers end up paying for the subsidies

Answer: (A) The Oil For Food "scandal".

But as this story has started to implicate the accusing side (Iraq fraud and corruption and U.S. ignored oil smuggling), the correct answer actually is:

(B) The Oil Is Food "truth"

1. Large agro-businesses seek to use political connections to obtain cheap fossil fuel products for production of fertilizer
2. Subsequent cheap fertilizer helps further spur the green revolution and U.S. exports act as a currency to control overseas development.
3. Agro-businesses reap much of the profit.
4. Depletion of fossil fuels leads to increase in cost, driving many away from fertilizer use.
5. Agro-businesses continue to need income. We pick up the tab.

I never thought much of the media's Oil For Food scandal, always thinking it just some framing device coming from the Furitan¹ wing of the Republican party, mainly meant to discredit the United Nations and therefore the French. The truth remains closer to the unspeakable but simple "We need oil for everything we do" argument.

Ray McGovern on why we went to Iraq.

Big Gav is also pondering the same thing today. Check it out.

---

¹ Furitans aka furious Puritans