Score One for the Smelly Dirty Hippies

Via TPMmuckraker, we see the US is pursuing permanent bases in Iraq:

The U.S. and Iraqi “Declaration of Principles” is a shared statement of intent that establishes common principles to frame our future relationship. This moves us closer to normalized, bilateral relations between our two countries. With this declaration, leaders of Iraq and the United States commit to begin negotiating the formal arrangements that will govern such a relationship.

Iraq’s leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.

Permanent bases- whee! Apparently our grand adventure in Iraq has proven to be so successful, we would like future generations to have the opportunity to experience Baghdad in a flak jacket. If you think about it, that is only fair, since future generations are going to be paying the 2.4 trillion dolar costs anyway.

At any rate, all throughout this rhetorical dance party from the Bush administration, in which we had to take out Iraq because of WMD, then we switched to a new step and stated we were there for peace and Democracy, it has been suggested that the notion of permanent bases in Iraq was merely fantasy from the lunatic conspiracy theorists on the left. As I have learned over the past few years- you don’t diss the insight of the smelly dirty hippies. Once again, they were right.

At the very least, surely no one would be so shameless as to not only fail to admit the hippies were right, but to attempt to turn this into more agitprop for domestic political concerns. Whoops. I forgot about Captain Ed:

The Iraqi government has offered the US a long-term security partnership that envisions a lower profile for American troops, as well as economic advantages for US investors. The agreement would replace the current UN mandate, which Iraq wants extended only to the end of 2008. It might also revive conspiratorial criticisms that have dogged the Iraq effort.

***

The open question will be whether the next US President will fulfill our side of the agreement. Hillary Clinton might or might not be strong enough not to cave to the isolationists, but Republicans almost to the man would strongly commit to a partnership with Iraq. Will such an agreement influence the 2008 elections?

Unless Ed can explain how predictions about the US wanting permanent bases (which, btw, turned out to be true) “dogged” the progress in Iraq, it might be time to move Ed from the “Blogs I read” category to the “Blogs We Monitor and Mock.” Personally, I missed the news reports that stated that “conspiracy theories kill 12 troops in Baghdad.” I guess that is just more evidence of liberal media bias. And I love the phrasing- the oil contracts we will get are just an accidental side-product of our determination to bring Democracy to the Middle East.

But let’s not mock Ed too much. He probably is just vying for Blog of the Year from Time.

53 replies
  1. 1
    sbgypsy says:

    Last I heard, the Iraqi congress was stonewalling for the express reason that they refuse to give away their oil rights for the next 30 years.

    I think they’ll just wait until the price of oil goes over $200 and then overrun our troops. (and I hope to all that’s goodness and light that I’m wrong)

  2. 2
    capelza says:

    raises hand..proud dirty, smelly hippie.

    I knew this was coming, or rather certainty was verified..when they started building that humungo embassy in Baghdad. And of course, that whole oil thing..well duh. Oh, and the longest runway in the ME built by the U.S. in Iraq.

  3. 3
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    the oil contracts we will get are just an accidental side-product of our determination to bring Democracy to the Middle East.

    So what if we take 2 or 3 million in oil profits to cover the miniscule costs of invading and rebuilding Iraq? We’ve earned it.

    Remember, only dirty hippies with tinfoil hats think we invaded Iraq primarily because of oil!
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html

  4. 4
    Wilfred says:

    Same as it ever was. Ed talks about economic advantages for American investors; Hobson defined imperialism as:

    the endeavor of the great controllers of industry to broaden the channel for the flow of their surplus wealth by seeking foreign markets and foreign investments to take off the goods and capital they cannot use at home

    This is imperialism/neo-colonialism. If Americans don’t give a shit about it they shouldn’t complain about what happens to them as a result of it.

  5. 5
    capelza says:

    Also, invading Iraq was a very convienient thing seeing as we had to leave Saudi Arabia aright about the time we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan just wasn’t that handy…Iraq is plop right in the middle of all the action.

  6. 6
    Jake says:

    With this declaration, leaders of Iraq and the United States commit to begin negotiating the formal arrangements that will govern such a relationship.

    Translating this from Ambassado-speak to English I predict at least five years before the first draft.

    And how will this impact oil deals the Kurds are already cutting with other countries?

  7. 7
    AnonE.Mouse says:

    Instead of continuing to take these baby bites,swallow hard and read some Chomsky.

  8. 8
    maxbaer (not the original) says:

    economic advantages for US investors

    Woo-hoo! Is there an Iraqi ETF I can put all my money in? I want to get in early.

  9. 9
    numbskull says:

    I haven’t been keeping score. Have the hippies been wrong yet? By my shallow and lazy analysis, they have not been wrong other than to misunderestimate how low the GOP will go.

  10. 10
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Of course we’re building permanent bases, moonbat–just like we built ’em in Germany and Japan. We’ve already taken out Saddam Hitler Hirohito Hussein; this is the next step in the process.

  11. 11
    Pb says:

    as well as economic advantages for US investors

    Uh, WTF? How has that been working out so far, again? Investors in what? Oil? The Euro? And what about the negative side of the balance sheet there, eh, Ed? You know, our tax dollars? That deficit thing? Hmm? Sheesh, plonk him in the mock category already, I ain’t reading that dreck.

  12. 12
    numbskull says:

    And btw, my vote is “mock”.

  13. 13
    qwerty42 says:

    So it’s empire vs “isolationists”. There are not enough troops to maintain imperial rule unless we bring back the draft or use mercenary armies. This is crazy. But what else to expect from the torture president?

  14. 14
    gypsy howell says:

    Still waiting for an apology from all the republicans who laughed at my ‘No Blood For Oil’ button I was wearing in Feb 2003…….

  15. 15
    racrecir says:

    The real story is the utterance from the Right of this phrase:

    whether [the US] will fulfill our side of the agreement

    It might be a first.

  16. 16

    Jesus H. Christ! The former Cheerleader and his gang of War Criminals seem to never Disappoint. Almost every fringe criticism of this Administration has turned out to be true. What next? Dare I say it? Please let at least One fringe group remain on the fringe. You know the one. The ubiquitous 9/11 Truthers are looking less and less–well–crazy. When Kucinich and Paul look like reasonable replacements for an administration so vile and wretched as to make one vomit at the mere mention of their Christians name you have to wonder how we got so far off the tracks. Whatever happened to the good old days when blowjobs and lost travel documents were all the rage? I sure do miss the good old days.

    This pack of treacherous curs should be put down with a cocktail of lethal drugs. Where’s Jack Kevorkian?

  17. 17
    J. Lynne says:

    Wasn’t one of the main complaints of Islamic terrorists the fact that the U.S. has troops in the Middle East to begin with? The catalyst for Al Qaeda was the U.S. troops that didn’t leave Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. So now we’ve set up shop in Afghanistan and Iraq, basically proving their point that we’re evil invaders of their land. Since 9/11, we’ve basically done everything that bin Laden wanted us to do or accused us of doing prior to that.

  18. 18
    Wilfred says:

    Investors in what?

    In wealth. The Iraqis are entering the phase of C-M-C; They will sell a commodity (oil) to get money, in order to buy other commodities – the surplus production of the West (and East), all that crap that the day after Thanksgiving was invented for. To Iraqis, money has use value. American investors, otoh, are capitalists. They occupy the state of M-C-M’, where M’ is surplus value.

    They don’t invest to make money in order to consume gee-whiz technology or some other commodity. They invest money to make money. They buy to sell, not consume – and for that they need markets. And politicians. And mercenary armies brainwashed with bullshit about democracy and FREEDOM.

  19. 19
  20. 20
    akaoni says:

    The thing is that anyone who intelligently looked at the players, who “planned” the war, knew that permanent bases were exactly what the war was about. The PNAC and AEI neo-cons plainly spelled out their arguments clearly, it was all there for those who wanted to look. The US needed a base from which to exert US force in the region and after the US was kicked out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq was the obvious choice. Weakened by years of war and sanctions, they could hardly defend themselves. They were not invaded because they were a threat, but rather because the neo-con architects saw Iraq as an easy cap.

    Of course people who pointed this out were mocked and portrayed as commies and dirty hippies, that’s standard operating procedure when truth is asserted in opposition to the cover narrative…but the rubes eat it up every time. Naturally, the major media outlets feed at the same trough, so they readily go with the “those people are just the crazy-out-of-the-mainstream-libs/commies/hippies/conspiracy theorists, don’t listen to them” meme, and mindless repeat talking points spoon-fed to them.

  21. 21
    capelza says:

    Of course people who pointed this out were mocked and portrayed as commies and dirty hippies, that’s standard operating procedure when truth is asserted in opposition to the cover narrative…but the rubes eat it up every time.

    And as for the “economic advantage”..at what cost? Or rather who paid for these advantages? Not the multi-national businesses that will benefit, but rather the American people…who were sold a bill of goods about freedom and scary Saddam in bed with OBL.

    akaoni, good point about the PNAC..I’ve linked to that for years, but people just didn’t want to see it.

  22. 22
    Rick Taylor says:

    Back in October 2005, Atrios wrote

    Something I think is just about undeniable at this point is that we have a president who has decided that “leaving Iraq=losing.” Even aside from whatever reason we’re really there for, or what our long term ambitions in the region are, he’s settled into this little narrative that can’t be broken. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. The terrorists are attacking us there. The terrorists want us to leave. If we leave the terrorists win.

    We are not going to see significant troop withdrawals in ’06, ’07, or ’08 absent a major rebellion by Republicans in Congress, which I can’t see happening. Even a Democratic sweep in ’06 won’t help end this thing.

    All the talk of benchmarks, timetables, withdrawal, whatever is somewhat moot. There’s nothing which will cause Bush to call for withdrawal. It’s his mission, his purpose, his raison d’etre. It’s all he’s got, and he’s not going to let go no matter how many people die.

    I used to take Atrios with a grain of salt; he’s one of the most outspoken left wing blogs I read. But he’s been saying this consistently, while pundits talk about the Baker commission, or how Republicans are really going to to get tough with Bush this time, and he’s been consistently right. His credibility has gone way up for me.

  23. 23
    Wilfred says:

    Of course people who pointed this out were mocked and portrayed as commies and dirty hippies, that’s standard operating procedure when truth is asserted in opposition to the cover narrative…but the rubes eat it up every time.

    Certainly the people at PNAC, AEI and elsewhere ‘have’ the free enterprise = freedom = democracy ideology to a certain extent but it is their ability to produce it in the minds of members of subordinated classes (rubes) that makes it appear as ‘right’, as something always already known to be true. It is the condition of those classes they can’t produce their own ideas, since, by definition, the means of production are in the hands of others. AND THAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND THE PUBLIC SPHERE which, thanks to Ed, Malkin, redState et al. is in danger of dying prematurely.

  24. 24
    Punchy says:

    Nobody spends over half a BILL on a building complex/fortress the size of Rhode Island, then gets up and leaves it to the unwashed.

    Once they broke ground on an Embassay big enough to have it’s own gravitational force, it was clear to the Kool-Aid-free schlubbs that we’re staying for a LONG time…

  25. 25
    Xanthippas says:

    The open question will be whether the next US President will fulfill our side of the agreement.

    No, the only “open” question is why we need massive, permanent bases in Iraq. Can anyone on the right explain in any seriousness whatsoever what national security need is fulfilled by maintaining a permanent garrison of troops in Iraq, or how such a garrison comports in anyway at all with the excuses that were given for the war in the first place?

  26. 26
    Jake says:

    For the record, this smelly hippy is up to 5:
    WMD – No
    Urban combat – Yes
    Refugee issues – Yes
    Coalition crumbling – Yes
    US in Iraq 4eva (if they can get away with it) – Yes

    Amazing what paying attention to a lil’ bit o history can do.

    Not Dirty Hippy William Odom must be rolling his eyes right now.

  27. 27
    racrecir says:

    The Anti-Ruffinian: I know my position on anti-war protestors a few years back- they were to be mocked, derided, ignored, out-protested, or countered with “facts” (the facts, in many cases, did not turn out to be on my side, but at least I was arguing from what I thought was an honest position). Nowhere did I even begin to imagine we would arrest people and have them interrogated by secret government units.

  28. 28
    robertognome says:

    I am, in fact a DFH. My hair is past my shoulder blades, and I last bathed on Sunday morning. I am also an honorably discharged Vietnam era veteran (not in-country, for the comprehension impaired). Please realize the DFHs have pretty much been right about everything in the last 40 years. We were right about Vietnam, Nixon, Reagan, CIA coke imports, Iran-Contra, etc, etc, etc, etc. I’m REALLY sick of “reasonable moderates” who vote Republican to prove how open minded they are. The ones who demand tolerance of intolerance and other such conundrums. It’s time to send them running. Ed, from everything I have ever read is an idiot. He is incapable of maintaining any kind of real consistency of thought, but is a kneejerk anti-“liberal” without the ability to even accurately define a liberal. So, mock away. Mock away loudly. Mock away proudly. No need to ask why, you already know.

  29. 29
    Konrad says:

    Xanthippas,

    I can’t speak for the right but if a country wants to project power in a region it is handy to have bases situated locally in the region from which to project power. The Saudi bases were getting uncomfortable for our pals, the Saudi Royal family in particular, so Iraq fitted the bill (with loads of sweet crude controlled by someone not our friend).

  30. 30
    Tsulagi says:

    This is as transparent as when Talabani proposed permanent US bases in the Kurd provinces.

    But now a twofer. Maliki gets a personal security force to prop him and his dying government up, which he desperately needs, and our dipshit Decider gets a legacy: Iraq Forever. Smart, strong. I would expect nothing less from our retards who drool over Freedom Fries adventures.

    Vote Republican for national security! Just say No! to a projected cost of $2.4 Trillion for our Iraq adventure. Go for the coveted UNLIMITED brass ring! With absolutely nothing to show for it while countries like Russia and China roll their eyes and giggle at our stupidity and Osama goes ass up again thanking Allah for the Retard.

  31. 31
    Perry Como says:

    How has that been working out so far, again? Investors in what?

    Raytheon, Dyncorp, Halliburton, Blackwater.

  32. 32
    Buck says:

    if a country wants to project power in a region it is handy to have bases situated locally in the region from which to project power. The Saudi bases were getting uncomfortable for our pals, the Saudi Royal family in particular, so Iraq fitted the bill (with loads of sweet crude controlled by someone not our friend)

    And there it is.

    This was just as true 5 years ago as it is today. Why folks would not see it then without getting all foamy at the mouth I’ll never know.

    This has always been about oil and sphere of influence.

    What else could it have been about?

    Baseball? Hot Dogs? Apple Pie? Chevrolet?

  33. 33
    ninerdave says:

    PNAC…wanna know where this is going, just read the site, while they’ve couched it for the general public, the road map has been there the whole time. Amusingly enough when I was first brought this up to people in the run up to the war, most wingnuts shot it down as a “conspiracy” theory, even though the signators were essentially the entire Bush administration.

    The only question remaining is will the Dems have the balls to stop Bush. If the next president is indeed a Dem, will they pull our troops out? Or will they endorse PNAC too.

  34. 34
    Pb says:

    Perry Como,

    Blackwater is privately held, but other than that, yeah. But basically, I’d love to see Special Ed’s ‘argument’ for how the Iraq war has generally been so freaking fabulous for our failing economy. That is, if he actually had anything more sophisticated or less foolish than “if you borrow a gazillion dollars against your nation’s future, then you’re magically a gazillion dollars richer, woo hoo!”

  35. 35
    Pb says:

    ninerdave,

    Here’s my old diary about the Frontline documentary on PNAC, from over four years ago, score one for this dirty hippie too…

  36. 36
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    This dirty hippy wishes he had been wrong, but the writing was on the wall a long time ago. When Bush was selected in 2000, I told my wife that he would find some excuse to invade Iraq. On 9-11, I said that whether or not they were involved, Bush was going to invade Iraq. There was too much grumbling on the far right that Daddy Bush did not finish the job in Desert Storm, and anyone with a lick of sense knows from Sonny Bush’s failures that he would want to try and outdo his dad just to one-up him. I also predicted then that we would give the Israelis a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians, in any way they saw fit. Before invading Iraq, I predicted that Afghanistan would become the forgotten war and that resources that were needed there would be diverted to Iraq.

    Maybe the next president ought to enlist the services of the dirty hippies in dealing with problems. We seem to predict the problem before it even happens. What a think tank that place would be…lol! Just make sure there is an endless supply of skunk buds, papers, screens, Cheetos, Sprite and bags of chocolate Riesen, and you will get plenty of priceless intelligence in return.

    It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the system we have now, and it would be almost infallible in its accuracy.

  37. 37
    r€nato says:

    Also, invading Iraq was a very convienient thing seeing as we had to leave Saudi Arabia aright about the time we invaded Iraq. Afghanistan just wasn’t that handy…Iraq is plop right in the middle of all the action.

    As numerous other commenter have, er, commented… bingo.

    We had no idea how serious Wolfowitz was when he told Vanity Fair in 2003 that there were competing bureaucratic reasons for the invasion of Iraq, but the one everyone could agree upon was the WMDs.

    Perhaps a more ‘blunt’ or ‘politically incorrect’ reason was, oil.

    More specifically, to have a seat at the OPEC table. It’s official now; Iraq is our proxy vote at OPEC. Iraq is our 51st or 52nd state. OPEC will not be switching to pricing oil in euros so long as we have a say in it, and we do. China will not be cutting any deals in Iraq nor Saudi Arabia. And if we had the troops to do it, you better believe we’d be in Iran too.

    No president is going to reverse this, whether Dem or GOP. Even in the extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely event that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich were to end up in the WH, they would be blocked from pulling out of Iraq by Congress, the Pentagon, and every monied interest in DC and New York and Texas/Oklahoma (that is, the oil companies). Impeachment would be arranged for such a president, if necessary.

    We are entering the era of peak oil and the decline of the dollar. The move into Iraq was and is intended to secure access to oil for the US, keep it relatively inexpensive compared to how much it would cost otherwise, and prop up the dollar’s status as a reserve currency.

    This is the price we pay for our energy-wasting, oil-addicted lifestyle. Today we are seeing the very real connection between Billy Joe Bob’s Hummer and the troops dying in the ME so that we can have access to the oil we need to sustain our economy.

    The best that can be hoped for is that the next president initiates a program to wean the US off of its extreme dependence on oil. There are multiple reasons to do this, just like there were multiple reasons to invade Iraq.

    Reducing oil consumption can free us from imperialistic intrigues and wars in the Middle East, which is sure to lead to not only thousands more dead troops over the years to come but also more 9/11’s. Reducing oil consumption can also help halt and even reverse global climate change.

    Do we have the wisdom and fortitude to follow through? Frankly, I doubt it. But all is not lost – a lot depends on the outcome of next year’s election. Republicans win, and I guarantee you the next generation or two will be dealing with the consequences of short-sighted Republican/neo-con imperialism. Democrats win, and we have a chance of fixing things.

  38. 38

    RE:R€NATO
    Despite all your conspiracy theories, the Pentagon cannot set foreign policy, the monied interests cannot set it, and impeachment requires Congressional votes. You have another problem – peak oil – there certainly is a finite amount of oil, we also do not at this point know what it is and the current pricing has to do with artificial conditions not supply.

    None of that means reduction in consumption is not a very good idea, nor does it not mean that the suppliers are not gaming the market or that BushCo is not complicit. None of that either means you are not an idiot, Americans are not fools, for long. Yes, history shows they can be fooled, for awhile, when they smarten up there is payback.

    I’ve been trying to figure which post you’ve ever made that didn’t assume America is a hole of stupidity and needs to let the rest of the world run it. Please, learn some US history, the actual stuff or STFU. The last thing in the world that you could accuse me of is being a provincial booster right wing loon, but I base my harsh criticisms on something resembling reality.

  39. 39
    r€nato says:

    I’m not a conspiracy theorist, Chuck, and if you think the Pentagon doesn’t have influence on foreign policy then you haven’t been paying attention the last several years.

    I don’t know where you got the idea I think America is a hole of stupidity. I do think we’ve been very short-sighted. Our imperialistic adventures wouldn’t have been (as) necessary without our dependence on petroleum and our wastefulness.

    As for your request that I STFU… I politely decline to do so. Have a nice day.

  40. 40
    r€nato says:

    impeachment requires Congressional votes.

    thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

    Of course, only a loony conspiracy theorist would think that a president could be impeached on trumped-up charges.

  41. 41
    r€nato says:

    Chuck, I suggest you re-read the blog post to which this comments thread belong. I think your irony detector is broken.

  42. 42
    Grace Nearing says:

    Who could have ever imagined….Oh, wait.

  43. 43
    rob says:

    it might be time to move Ed from the “Blogs I read” category to the “Blogs We Monitor and Mock.” Personally, I missed the news reports that stated that “conspiracy theories kill 12 troops in Baghdad.”

    I always wondered why Cap. Ed got a pass by so many. He has always seemed to be a cheerleader to me. I don’t remember any criticism of the right from him.

  44. 44
    Tsulagi says:

    Here’s my old diary about the Frontline documentary on PNAC, from over four years ago, score one for this dirty hippie too…

    Ah the memories. I’m not a smelly, dirty hippie, but when I first read PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses about five years ago I couldn’t believe it. Amazingly, I just checked their site and they still have it up. Apparently still proud of it. They’re that stupid.

    It reads like it was written by dweebs who had their lunch money taken from them in school. Then years later their kids waxed their asses while playing war video games. So now they’re looking to show they’re real thinkers and tough. This 90 page report is their grand tactical and stratergeric military brilliance to achieve Pax Americana put to paper. They should use it as material for stand-up comedy. Or a video game.

    It’s partly the basis for the really smart Bush Doctrine. Wonder if they ever explained it to him. Naw, he would have just glazed over.

    That paper was also the basis for Rumsfeld’s plan to restructure the military toward his 10-30-30 objective. Ten days to get to theater, 30 days to kick ass, then 30 days to pack up and redeploy for the next adventure. What could possibly go wrong or take more time?

    This would be funny shit if it weren’t for the fact the retards who came up with this stuff have had the buttons. And used them. Their brilliant thinking and competence has been on full display with Iraq.

  45. 45
    montysano says:

    Renato nailed it: it’s about having a place from which to project power; it’s about oil; and, maybe most of all, it’s about protecting the trade of oil in US dollars only. Right now, every time a barrel of oil is bought, the rest of the world is forced to, essentially, pay a tax for not being American. This has, of course, been the enabling factor for the US to become such a profligate, irresponsible debtor nation.

    Remember…… Saddam was toying with trading oil in euros back about 2000. And Iran has threatened the same thing. This has always been Iran’s transgression. Do you think we really give a shit about how Iran treats its intellectuals and gays?

  46. 46
    LITBMueller says:

    Heh. How the hell was it a “conspiracy theory” in the first place when a guy like William Krisol was writing shit like this

    The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America’s position in the world today…
    … In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence…

    …way back in 1996!

  47. 47
    ramster says:

    At current oil prices, The world spends about $3.25 trillion per year on oil. Since oil has quadrupled in the last 5 years and all indications (i.e. peak oil theory and observed facts) is that it’s not going down, that means that the price of oil has increased by about $2.4 trillion per year over the last 5 years. It’s reasonable to assume that the amount spent on oil will stay the same or increase in the future (even if there’s less oil produced and consumed, it’ll cost more, much more). Over the next 20 years, that’s at least $50 trillion dollars sitting on the table. Suddenly, spending $2.5 trillion on a war seems like a pretty good investment(and the cost of a garrison of 100000 troops, their bases and the Imperial palace a.k.a US embassy seem trivial in comparison)

    BTW, Iraq has the world’s 3rd largest oil reserves, despite being a wasteland for exploration and development of new oil production capacity for the last 20 years. Just think what “preferential treatment” for US investors in Iraqi oil is worth.

  48. 48
    jake says:

    LITBMueller, thanks for the reminder that I fucking loathe Billie Kristol. Really, the man puts all three Ts in Stupid Twat.

    To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence…

    And mandatory military service and a magical ass that pukes gold onto a special table cloth.

    Begone, daft old coot.

  49. 49
    STEVEinSC says:

    I am not a DFH, but I did smell a rat in 2002 and a very ripe one. The sudden change from osama to sadam, the rush to conclusions made me suspicious. How united we all were in punishing osama! How our community of feeling was betrayed! I remember the talk of splitting up Iraq’s oil fields into interest areas before we invaded. No, it became quickly clear this vile little AIPAC/PNAC/Christofascist hatchling made from all the repuke loves–military-boosting, Military-Industrial Complex trickledown, swagering international brutishness, oil field-seizing, all built on deficit spending and authoritarian government. And what do we have for all this? Death, destruction, debased currency, debt, loss of respect and a tin-horn Shah in the newly reincarnated 1970’s Iran. And what of Hillary and the rest? How much of this have they bought into, or rather how much of it has bought into them?

  50. 50

    What R€NATO misses re: the Pentagon is that it doesn’t set policy, it carries it out. BushCo had an agenda and the Pentagon got to do it.

    As for the price of oil, taking out the falling dollar, about 40% of the price is fear surtax. Now which among George II’s pals could possibly benefit? What R€NATO actually got right was the basis for going to Iraq – oil and its control.

    As for my irony detector, you’ve engaged in irony?

  51. 51
    gex says:

    Just one for the DFHs? C’mon. They were right about oil dependence and food safety too.

  52. 52
    gex says:

    “There must be some way out of here,” said the Joker to the Thief.

  53. 53

    […] What comes after Enduring Freedom TM? An Enduring Relationship TM in Iraq. An Enduring RelationshipTM is what happens when one country visits another country with troops and then stays there in large bases. Forever. Maybe Longer TM. […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] What comes after Enduring Freedom TM? An Enduring Relationship TM in Iraq. An Enduring RelationshipTM is what happens when one country visits another country with troops and then stays there in large bases. Forever. Maybe Longer TM. […]

Comments are closed.