The New York Times this morning publishes an op-ed piece by Peter W. Galbraith about the need for elections in Afghanistan to be "transparent." But as the Financial Times, National Review, and the American Enterprise Institute blog have pointed out, Mr. Galbraith was less than completely transparent in disclosing his stake in a Kurdish oil field at a time when he testified before Congress about Iraq. There's been no mention at all in the New York Times about Mr. Galbraith's Iraqi Kurdish oil dealings. The Kurds need all the friends they can get, and being a friend of the Kurds isn't necessarily lucrative. It's nice to see some Democrats who are still in the oil business rather than "alternative energy." Still, the same New York Times that is hyper-sensitive when it comes to, say, Richard Perle's business dealings or Henry Kissinger's seems to be giving Mr. Galbraith a pass, much as it did with Brent Scowcroft. It's reminiscent of the old investigative reporter saying: "There are two kinds of people in the world, sources and targets." For the New York Times, Mr. Galbraith is a source (and an op-ed page contributor), not a target.
Galbraith on Transparency