No kidding.

Caw caw!

Here’s the other thing that I saw pointed out somewhere else (althespook?, emptywheel?) is that this deal is a huge giant poke into the eye to Turkey, because the deal potentially puts a good deal of money into Iraqi Kurdish hands, which in turn potentially finances the separatist activities of the Turkish Kurdish, which Turkey has been quite unapologetic about suppressing. With the increased money going here, there could be some quite spectacular, and unwelcome, developments should Turkey enter the fray here.

It just sounds so incredibly stupid, and greedy, it just blows me away.

Burning down the house this morning you are Mr. Scarecrow

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

Makes you wonder how much stock of Hunts company Cheney owns now doesn’t it.

Oh dear. The WH confirms today, in its usual timely way, that the surge has failed to achieve any of its original objectives. I guess this changes everything.

OT – helen thomas on cspan1 – recorded yesterday

More on that oil:

On Thursday, the assurance seemed aimed largely at Iran as a warning that Mr. Bush had no intention of leaving an Iran with oil, clout and nuclear ambitions as the greatest beneficiary of a war in which very little has gone as planned, and in which the victory he once saw on the horizon no longer seems a sure bet.

peanutbutter @ 3

Here’s the other thing that I saw pointed out somewhere else (althespook?, emptywheel?) is that this deal is a huge giant poke into the eye to Turkey, because the deal potentially puts a good deal of money into Iraqi Kurdish hands, which in turn potentially finances the separatist activities of the Turkish Kurdish, which Turkey has been quite unapologetic about suppressing. With the increased money going here, there could be some quite spectacular, and unwelcome, developments should Turkey enter the fray here.

It just sounds so incredibly stupid, and greedy, it just blows me away.

yeah al said that last night.

When I heard that the Hunts were allowed to get involved and bypass any semblance of any US foreign policy, it was as if we were back in the days of Imperial Baghdad. The stories of all the republiclones being allowed to do business at will in the Green Zone and throughout Iraq, damn the consequences was one the (many) factors that brought us to this miserable failure in Iraq.

There is no doubt that to be a friend of the decider is profitable to the n-th degree.
Everyone else just gets to pick up the tab for their sweetheart deals and ultimate inside trading when it goes wrong.

I wonder how long it will be before an Army division is diverted north to protect the “vital National Security Interests” of the Hunt Family in Kurdistan?

Hunt won’t put a penny into Iraq unless he’s sure that the US will always be there to protect his investment- seems odd to be buyin oil from people who don’t officially own it though? Strange times.

We need ag general strike. Please go read Garret Keizer’s article in Harper’s. NOVEMBER 6 – GENERAL STRIKE!!!!!

Anyone seen a cogent discussion of Bush’s claim that he was going to do things to insure that the US would be in Iraq long after he leaves office?

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

I am wondering why the partition of Iraq should be an issue at all. If I am not mistaken, there was no such country before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire; i.e. Iraq is a sort-of made up country to begin with. Doesn’t its partition just put a much-needed buffer between what have been centuries-old warring political factions?

-MS

And impeachment is a lovely idea, and we should work for it, but it’s not directly in our control. What is in our control is our own contribution to the economy. NOVEMBER 6 – GENERAL STRIKE!!!!!

Yesterday’s postings on the 80 and 101:

http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..today.html

“The ones who sell the bullets are the ones who call the shots.”

In John Perkins’ book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, he writes that whoever controls Iraq controls the entire region. Iraq is a key geopolitical location for control not only of oil but for water as well. No wonder they have positioned themselves to have an occupying force there for years to come. And, why, the Dems are going along with it despite the rhetoric. It’s all about the oil and fear of what will happen if we can’t get it. i think Dems are scared that if we lose access to Iraqi oil that Americans will start freaking. And of course this could have been avoided by not going to war in the first place and doing some rational planning and investment in alternative energy supplies. Fear has so many consequences and they aren’t good.

In re the previous “Impeachment” post:

What all this means is that the next president, even as he or she tries to extricate us from Iraq — and prevent the country’s breakup from turning into a regional war — will have to deal with constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unnecessary war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures.

This above all other things should be the prime reason for an Impeachment proceeding: to get the truth out, and to ensure that history records the truth of this criminal administration and not the revisionist history it is already writing with the help of their media stenographers and wingnut welfare writers.

General strike?

No thank you. I doubt the children waiting to get heart surgery in Russia would understand the political points involved.

Michael in Park Slope @ 15

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

I am wondering why the partition of Iraq should be an issue at all. If I am not mistaken, there was no such country before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire; i.e. Iraq is a sort-of made up country to begin with. Doesn’t its partition just put a much-needed buffer between what have been centuries-old warring political factions?

-MS

You make it sound like some clinical operation. Iraq was a state, and we wanted to destroy it. That it was a state in 2003 trumps the fact that it was not a state in 1919.

Re Impeachment:
I’ve written all my reps in IL as well as every single member of the House Judiciary Cmte. I am a nobody but got a personal letter back from Barack Obama bascially saying the standard Democratic line that they want to focus there energies on other “priorities”. I agree impeachment is absolutely necessary for truthtelling. Alas, I’m not seeing any movement towards it in Congress.

Impeachment IS the cure!

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

If someone said, “we should force people out of their homes and make them move to areas where they will be with others like them,” I would find it an odious policy.

If someone said, “there is a civil war going on in which rival groups are attempting to force the same thing on each other, and we should get in the middle of that,” I would find the suggestion dubious/unwise unless preventing it could be shown to be unmistakenly in our security interests.

If someone said, “there is mutual genocide being waged by rival groups, and the only way to prevent it is to put ourselves in between the warring groups, and risk significant casualties” I would be tempted, although I believe this should be an internationally sanctioned police action and not a unilateral US military operation.

These three competing narratives cannot be easily reconciled. That’s where we are. If our leaders would admit this awful dilemma, and remove from this ensuing discussion those whose flawed judgments and deceits created this fiasco, we could at least have a helpful conversation about it. But we are spending so much time dealing with lies and delusions, and having to listen almost exclusively to those who brought this calamity on us and who are still in denial about it and their complicity, that no rational conversations can occur. In the meantime, the “cleansing” continues.

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

SuburbanGirl @ 18

In John Perkins’ book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, he writes that whoever controls Iraq controls the entire region. Iraq is a key geopolitical location for control not only of oil but for water as well. No wonder they have positioned themselves to have an occupying force there for years to come. And, why, the Dems are going along with it despite the rhetoric. It’s all about the oil and fear of what will happen if we can’t get it. i think Dems are scared that if we lose access to Iraqi oil that Americans will start freaking. And of course this could have been avoided by not going to war in the first place and doing some rational planning and investment in alternative energy supplies. Fear has so many consequences and they aren’t good.

Iraq is an oasis in the desert. The land between the Tigress and Euphrates rivers is the best in the Middle East.

The Perkins book is a great one. A very concise, entertaining and easy read.

Hegemony Or Survival by Noam Chomsky is also very good.

Sorry, off topic, but did anyone think, like me, how well Betrayus (named such by soldiers in Iraq!!) is doing as a potential Republican Presidential candidate. His training in lying while sounding sincere and plausible is very advanced already!

On topic…… permitting the Kurds to throw away all the existing oil contracts and processes is just so typical of the Bush/Cheney not thought through policies. Do they really think Turkey will let Kurdistan do that? These two goons are setting up for a serious conflagration.

Where would The Lobby stand? Israel has sucked up to Turkey for more than 50 years, but is harming that relationship by sucking up to Iraqi Kurdistan. When Turkey invades Kurdistan, which side will The Lobby tell us to support?

brendan @ 21:

I did not mean to imply that the partition of Iraq was some sort of a “clinical operation.” And, I’m not certain that, should it come to pass, it would be the US who would cause it to: there are, I believe, many Iraqis (certainly many Iraqi Kurds) who would not be unhappy with that turn of events, no?

-MS

I will be attending the Harkin Steak Fry on Sunday. With most of the Dem candidates in attendance, I think this would be a great opportunity to get a progressive message out. Any suggestions? Signs, Banners, T-shirts?

I read this in the Times this morning. I don’t know. It’s one more piece of evidence that this whole mess is failing, but it’s just that. Why does he need to look at this one little thing when the whole picture is riddled with stuff like that? When was the last time we heard of a school opening? They don’t even try to suggest that the media is hiding the good news. Now the good news is all “tiny pieces of hope” and “maybe, just maybe, this war could be worth it.” I get sick whenever I hear these stories.

Trouble is- there AIN’T no Kurdistan….Kurdistan can’t sell anything- it doesn’t exist.

peanutbutter @ 3

Here’s the other thing that I saw pointed out somewhere else (althespook?, emptywheel?) is that this deal is a huge giant poke into the eye to Turkey, because the deal potentially puts a good deal of money into Iraqi Kurdish hands, which in turn potentially finances the separatist activities of the Turkish Kurdish, which Turkey has been quite unapologetic about suppressing. With the increased money going here, there could be some quite spectacular, and unwelcome, developments should Turkey enter the fray here.

It just sounds so incredibly stupid, and greedy, it just blows me away.

I’ve been lurking for a while, not wishing to intrude on private grief. But now it is getting personal. As you may know, or not as the case may be, Turkey is attempting to join the EU, the organisation into which , for good or ill, the UK’s future is locked. Bringing in Turkey always looked to me to be a good way to engage Islamic countries. But if Turkey should get into a proxy war with the USA (Britain’s long-term closest ally), and that’s where this is going make no mistake, that all falls apart. British society, which is already coping poorly with integrating its Muslim population, will suffer greatly, not just through occasional acts of madmen, but also through a breakdown of the very thing us liberals in Britain have been so proud of. If you get angry at Bush and Cheney, how do you think we feel?

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

Scarecrow @ 24

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

If someone said, “we should force people out of their homes and make them move to areas where they will be with others like them,” I would find it an odious policy.

If someone said, “there is a civil war going on in which rival groups are attempting to force the same thing on each other, and we should get in the middle of that,” I would find the suggestion dubious/unwise unless preventing it could be shown to be unmistakenly in our security interests.

If someone said, “there is mutual genocide being waged by rival groups, and the only way to prevent it is to put ourselves in between the warring groups, and risk significant casualties” I would be tempted, although I believe this should be an internationally sanctioned police action and not a unilateral US military operation.

These three competing narratives cannot be easily reconciled. That’s where we are. If our leaders would admit this awful dilemma, and remove from this ensuing discussion those whose flawed judgments and deceits created this fiasco, we could at least have a helpful conversation about it. But we are spending so much time dealing with lies and delusions, and have to listen almost exclusively to those who brought this calamity on us, that no rational conversations can occur.

One of my complaints is that multiple commenters now have suggested “partition” is merely some passive acquiescence to an inevitable course of events. They also seem ignorant of the context and provenance of these notions that Iraq is “just a bunch of tribes” and like assessements. There’s a geopolitical aim in pushing partition and the Democratic Party, and even people here, seem to be signing on to it. I don’t consider it a “change of course” that Biden, the hypocrite, is lamenting Bush after he originally voted for the war: his advocacy of partition is perfectly consistent with that vote.

Some are suggesting that Iraq is partitioning itself-

That’s not quite right.

What it’s doing in the absence of a central govt..is reverting to tribalism- and control by local Shieks- it’s a giant step backwards.

If the control is returned to tribal chiefs- a new national “govt.” will appear that is nothing but a puppet regime controlled by the local shieks.

So much for “democracy”–Iraq will revert to it’s tribal roots.

Michael in Park Slope @ 28

brendan @ 21:

I did not mean to imply that the partition of Iraq was some sort of a “clinical operation.” And, I’m not certain that, should it come to pass, it would be the US who would cause it to: there are, I believe, many Iraqis (certainly many Iraqi Kurds) who would not be unhappy with that turn of events, no?

-MS

I don’t know what Iraqis think about it. I’m only concerning myself with the motives of Americans keen on the prospect.

twolf1 @ 8

OT – helen thomas on cspan1 – recorded yesterday

(((Helen Thomas))) will never be OT in my book. One of the greatest on this planet, ever.

Thanks for the headsup – will look for repeat. ;->

rwcole @ 25

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

Which reminds me of a poster I saw long ago, in a protest in Brussels, “Monica, we need you now!” or something to that effect…

Michael in Park Slope @ 15

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

I am wondering why the partition of Iraq should be an issue at all. If I am not mistaken, there was no such country before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire; i.e. Iraq is a sort-of made up country to begin with. Doesn’t its partition just put a much-needed buffer between what have been centuries-old warring political factions?

-MS

Ummmm…

Because if we walk away from the imperial hubris that somehow 300 million Americans should determine what happens in the sovereign nations where the other 6 billion earthlings live….

The “partition” of Iraq – driven by the US’ choice to build up secarian parties, rather than political parties – is drenched in blood.

Ever smelled human blood – lots of it?

From big holes in the chest and face?

Over one million Iraq dead.

Millions of Iraq external refugees.

Millions more internally displaced.

Majority of childern meeting diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder – they’ve ssen so much fear and death and suffering.

Hey – but for the dreamers who sit in their armcharis and compensate for their lack of control in their own lives by fantasizing about the Great Game and our glorious Empire’s nation-building, all that’s just collateral damage.

Scarecrow @ 24

brendan @ 5

Scarecrow:

In the last thread @68, I complained about the notion that we should preside over a partition and I found Biden particularly odious for advocating this from relatively early on. I also alluded to a surge in partition talk among the punditry. Do you have an opinion on this angle?

If someone said, “we should force people out of their homes and make them move to areas where they will be with others like them,” I would find it an odious policy.

If someone said, “there is a civil war going on in which rival groups are attempting to force the same thing on each other, and we should get in the middle of that,” I would find the suggestion dubious/unwise unless preventing it could be shown to be unmistakenly in our security interests.

If someone said, “there is mutual genocide being waged by rival groups, and the only way to prevent it is to put ourselves in between the warring groups, and risk significant casualties” I would be tempted, although I believe this should be an internationally sanctioned police action and not a unilateral US military operation.

These three competing narratives cannot be easily reconciled. That’s where we are. If our leaders would admit this awful dilemma, and remove from this ensuing discussion those whose flawed judgments and deceits created this fiasco, we could at least have a helpful conversation about it. But we are spending so much time dealing with lies and delusions, and having to listen almost exclusively to those who brought this calamity on us and who are still in denial about it and their complicity, that no rational conversations can occur. In the meantime, the “cleansing” continues.

wow. That perfectly sums it up, especially the last paragraph.

Hey Scarecrow, you wouldn’t perhaps be interested in taking over the Washington Post editorial page would you? [sigh]

Scarecrow,
Seattle Times printed a LA Times report that U.S. & Mahdi Army — another marriage of convenience in Iraq. Apparently, ethnic cleansing and partition are America’s new goals in Iraq. But, we all are living in a neo-Stalinist land that denies reality and the truth is hidden in a mound of media crap.

The Iraq has always been a colonial war to control resources. Attrition, “Kill them all and let Allah sort them out”, is the official American war strategy. A colonial war of attrition has three major flaws: 1) “Occupations are resisted simply because they are occupations”, 2) if the other side can reproduce more warriors it is a losing game, and 3) the Distributor of death and destruction looses the high moral ground.

The basic neo-Stalinist problem is that without the draft and millions of troops on the ground American is going to loose the Iraqi oil. Oh, is that why we are going to bomb Iran? Losing an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf will assure the draft.

Scarecrow @ 7

Oh dear. The WH confirms today, in its usual timely way, that the surge has failed to achieve any of its original objectives. I guess this changes everything.

Timely, indeed!

From one empire to another in the Middle East:

During World War I the British and French divided the Middle East in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Treaty of Sèvres, which was ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the advent of the modern Middle East and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which then consisted of two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

IrishJim @ 29

I will be attending the Harkin Steak Fry on Sunday. With most of the Dem candidates in attendance, I think this would be a great opportunity to get a progressive message out. Any suggestions? Signs, Banners, T-shirts?

direct questions IRT a permanent presence in iraq.

oddmommy –I think I’d hate working for/with Fred Hiatt. I have a very low tolerance for willful ignorance.

rwcole @ 35

Some are suggesting that Iraq is partitioning itself-

That’s not quite right.

What it’s doing in the absence of a central govt..is reverting to tribalism- and control by local Shieks- it’s a giant step backwards.

If the control is returned to tribal chiefs- a new national “govt.” will appear that is nothing but a puppet regime controlled by the local shieks.

So much for “democracy”–Iraq will revert to it’s tribal roots.

I love how everyone suddenly fancies himself an expert in the tribes of Mesopotamia. Iraq was a modern state, if a dictatorship. If you eradicate its infrastructure and government over the course of fifteen years any state will revert to “tribalism”. What patronizing arrogance and, frankly, neocon-inspired racism. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this flippant analysis to gullibility; we’ve all been there.

rwcole @ 35

Some are suggesting that Iraq is partitioning itself-

That’s not quite right.

What it’s doing in the absence of a central govt..is reverting to tribalism- and control by local Shieks- it’s a giant step backwards.

If the control is returned to tribal chiefs- a new national “govt.” will appear that is nothing but a puppet regime controlled by the local shieks.

So much for “democracy”–Iraq will revert to it’s tribal roots.

Some would say that the US is dividing in the same way. Our ever-diminishing democracy is support of this.

rwcole @ 25

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

Your key point is well understood, though, surely Cluster has had plenty of blow jobs with his drugs and alcohol. His youthful indiscretions included many pleasurable moments in Mexico. Imborrables momentos que siempre guarda corazon.

Now he plays a sanctimonious hypocrite on teevee and in real life.

Elliott @ 86 on previous blog, thank you.

In addition to Hunt Oil, a Dana Gas also has a contract with the Kurds. Google was no help in my search for the American connection to Dana Gas but I’m sure it’s there.

I am sick to death of politics but am not getting maimed or killed or displaced by it as so many are.

Who can honestly say Hussein was worse than Bush except the morally challenged Republics–and I’m into thinking too many Democrats of the same stripe?

Biodun @ 33

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

One of the best accounts of this is Margaret Macmillan’s book Paris 1919

twȝk @ 44

IrishJim @ 29

I will be attending the Harkin Steak Fry on Sunday. With most of the Dem candidates in attendance, I think this would be a great opportunity to get a progressive message out. Any suggestions? Signs, Banners, T-shirts?

direct questions IRT a permanent presence in iraq.

If you’re not cowards, restore the Republic. Impeachment NOW.

There’s a second war underway in Iraq that’s a war for the control of the oil wealth. That’s a war that is pitting Kurds against the Arabs of the country, Shiites against Sunnis, and Shiite against Shiite. Because eventually the Americans are going to leave and the people of Iraq know this.

from Michael Klare (Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.”) interviewed this morning.

we’re all fighting over control of the oil

Scarecrow @ 45

oddmommy –I think I’d hate working for/with Fred Hiatt. I have a very low tolerance for willful ignorance.

actually I was suggesting that you REPLACE Fred Hiatt.

I’d kind of like to see him out on a DC street with a tin cup and a sign reading “will suck up to criminals for food.”

Chetnolian — it is all too much for any of us to hold in our heads. Wish you well.

Bustednuckles @ 6

Makes you wonder how much stock of Hunts company Cheney owns now doesn’t it.

I can’t imagine that someone from Hunt Oil was one of the industry officials Cheney consulted with to set our energy policy.

Scarecrow @ 45

oddmommy –I think I’d hate working for/with Fred Hiatt. I have a very low tolerance for willful ignorance.

no! with scarecrow running things. i imagine the first thing you would do is to fire hiatt.

Chetnolian @ 32

peanutbutter @ 3

Here’s the other thing that I saw pointed out somewhere else (althespook?, emptywheel?) is that this deal is a huge giant poke into the eye to Turkey, because the deal potentially puts a good deal of money into Iraqi Kurdish hands, which in turn potentially finances the separatist activities of the Turkish Kurdish, which Turkey has been quite unapologetic about suppressing. With the increased money going here, there could be some quite spectacular, and unwelcome, developments should Turkey enter the fray here.

It just sounds so incredibly stupid, and greedy, it just blows me away.

I’ve been lurking for a while, not wishing to intrude on private grief. But now it is getting personal. As you may know, or not as the case may be, Turkey is attempting to join the EU, the organisation into which , for good or ill, the UK’s future is locked. Bringing in Turkey always looked to me to be a good way to engage Islamic countries. But if Turkey should get into a proxy war with the USA (Britain’s long-term closest ally), and that’s where this is going make no mistake, that all falls apart. British society, which is already coping poorly with integrating its Muslim population, will suffer greatly, not just through occasional acts of madmen, but also through a breakdown of the very thing us liberals in Britain have been so proud of. If you get angry at Bush and Cheney, how do you think we feel?

Send us some Hessians quick!!!

Michael in Park Slope @ 15

I am wondering why the partition of Iraq should be an issue at all. If I am not mistaken, there was no such country before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire; i.e. Iraq is a sort-of made up country to begin with. Doesn’t its partition just put a much-needed buffer between what have been centuries-old warring political factions?

-MS

By that reasoning, the USA is also a made up country and absolutely no reason why it should exist at all in its present format or the UK which includes N Ireland and Canada and Indonesia and many many others.

Stupidest comment I have seen in the FDL. Colonialism wreaked havoc across many countries which were bled dry. The world has tried valiantly to recover from that economic and cultural devastation by accepting a status quo to work with as long as the ignominy of colonial imperialism was done away with.

Poll after poll indicate most Iraqis, Shia and Sunni alike, would prefer an Iraqi identity. Kurds would prefer to cleanse Kirkuk of Arabs and Turkmen with US aid.

Is that your final imperial solution? Is that the best you can come up with? What right have you to spout half history?

oddmommy @ 53

Scarecrow @ 45

oddmommy –I think I’d hate working for/with Fred Hiatt. I have a very low tolerance for willful ignorance.

actually I was suggesting that you REPLACE Fred Hiatt.

I’d kind of like to see him out on a DC street with a tin cup and a sign reading “will suck up to criminals for food.”

FFFH on the street would be glorious!

Kinda reminds me of the movie ‘Trading Places’

Yep, autonomous Kurdistan has been making lucrative oil deals for itself:

In 2006 the first new oil well since the invasion of Iraq was drilled in the Kurdistan region by the Norwegian energy company DNO. Initial indications are that the oil field contains at least 100 million barrels of oil and will be pumping 5,000 bpd by early 2007. The KRG has signed exploration agreements with two other oil companies, Canada’s Western Oil Sands and the UK’s Sterling Energy.

(snip)

Since 2003, the stronger economy of Kurdistan has attracted around 20,000 Arab workers from the rest of Iraq to seek jobs in Iraqi Kurdistan.[21] According to Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, since 2003 the number of millionaires in the Kurdish city of Silêmani has increased from 12 to 2000, reflecting the financial and economic growth of the region.[22]

kirk murphy @ 39:

I’ve got to take issue with your implication that I am pro- “imperial hubris” on the part of the US (see my post @ 28). The suffering of the Iraqi people was brought on by our illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state, and MUST, therefore be laid at our doorstep, and figure prominently in any cessation of hostilities.

Further, it seems to me that much of the suffering which you describe might be relieved if the warring factions were separated, whether by us or the Iraqis themselves.

-MS

Biodun @ 33

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

I’m glad you made this comment. The same justification of partitioning could easily be applied — and perhaps soon will be — to Lebanon and Syria. Or Iran.

selise @ 52

There’s a second war underway in Iraq that’s a war for the control of the oil wealth. That’s a war that is pitting Kurds against the Arabs of the country, Shiites against Sunnis, and Shiite against Shiite. Because eventually the Americans are going to leave and the people of Iraq know this.

from Michael Klare (Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.”) interviewed this morning.

we’re all fighting over control of the oil

This has never made sense to me. Suppose that the Chinese reach a deal to purchase the entire oil output of Iraq. It’s just another bilateral contract on a market that is world wide, and the supply of oil doesn’t change, nor does the marginal supply that sets the price. If Iraq were the only oil supply, so that hoarding it would preclude others from having any, then the arguments about oil would make sense. But that has never been the case. Oil is supplied worldwide and the market is worldwide. Hugh?

The only thing that will make a difference is the economic impact of a general strike. Excuse me, egregious? I’m sure that people (like me) calling for a general strike can exempt people performing emergency surgery. I’m not sure why people aren’t discussing actually DOING something. After all, most of the people writing on this board have been CALLING for something for a long, long time. Nothing’s going to change unless we change it. Before people write comments rejecting a General Strike out of hand, please read Garret Keizer’s persuasive article in Harpers, and argue against it on the merits. I would say that 95% of people working are not working in emergency health care.

selise @ 56

Scarecrow @ 45

oddmommy –I think I’d hate working for/with Fred Hiatt. I have a very low tolerance for willful ignorance.

no! with scarecrow running things. i imagine the first thing you would do is to fire hiatt.

I’d get to write all the editorials complaining about those DFH and foul-mouthed fembloggers. Revenge! Can’t wait to meet Gerson, Krautheimer, Broder, et al. Where are my cocktail weenies?

njprogressive @ 50

Biodun @ 33

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

One of the best accounts of this is Margaret Macmillan’s book Paris 1919

Nice to finally find someone else who has read that book!

Excellent background material on what that part of the world was like at the creation and some very good information on the Treaty of Versailles that led to Weimar and the fascist aftermath.

Michael in Park Slope @ 61

kirk murphy @ 39:

I’ve got to take issue with your implication that I am pro- “imperial hubris” on the part of the US (see my post @ 28). The suffering of the Iraqi people was brought on by our illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state, and MUST, therefore be laid at our doorstep, and figure prominently in any cessation of hostilities.

Further, it seems to me that much of the suffering which you describe might be relieved if the warring factions were separated, whether by us or the Iraqis themselves.

-MS

whether partition is a good idea or not,or who should implement it, you did NOT deserve the attacks you received for your comment. It’s a reasonable question for discussion, because as folks have observed, we’re a little low on solutions to the mess we created over there.

Sally @ 49

Elliott @ 86 on previous blog, thank you.

In addition to Hunt Oil, a Dana Gas also has a contract with the Kurds. Google was no help in my search for the American connection to Dana Gas but I’m sure it’s there.

I am sick to death of politics but am not getting maimed or killed or displaced by it as so many are.

Who can honestly say Hussein was worse than Bush except the morally challenged Republics–and I’m into thinking too many Democrats of the same stripe?

Hussein was an evil monster. Yet under him, the population of Iraq enjoyed the highest level of education (men and women) and medical care in the Middle East.

Over a million dead in less than five years;

millions displaced;

infrastructure – that which survived a decade of collective punishment sanctions destroyed

mundane tasks of daily life now bring random death

no effective political representation

widespread torture and political violence

torture and death for dissidents and regime opponents

Bush’s war replaced one tyranny with another, and American troops and weapons have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians. America’s deliberate destruction of Iraq civilian water supply and power grid killed hundreds of thousands – and keeps on killing.

We have brought death and suffering to Iraq on a scale undreamt of by Hussein…

and beggared the US people, wasting a trillion dollars on the carnage.

All so a weak man could fight with his father.

Impeachement – for Democrats who aren’t wimps

Scarecrow @ 63

selise @ 52

from Michael Klare (Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.”) interviewed this morning.

we’re all fighting over control of the oil

This has never made sense to me. Suppose that the Chinese reach a deal to purchase the entire oil output of Iraq. It’s just another bilateral contract on a market that is world wide, and the supply of oil doesn’t change, nor does the marginal supply that sets the price. If Iraq were the only oil supply, so that hoarding it would preclude others from having any, then the arguments about oil would make sense. But that has never been the case. Oil is supplied worldwide and the market is worldwide. Hugh?

Scarecrow,
Is it your opinion, then, that sustained occupation of Iraq has less to do with oil than ????? What is the attraction? Sociopathy of the neo-cons? I really don’t understand. Please advise.

Sorry if I’m repeating anyone since I haven’t read the comments yet, but our troops will be in Iraq to protect Bush’s buddy, Mr. Hunt’s future investments.

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Halliburton needs protection too, while a few individuals reap substantial profits. Is Cheney still a shareholder, by the way?

Friends don’t let friends link to Times Select.

Frank Probst @ 71

Friends don’t let friends link to Times Select.

lol

Scarecrow @ 63

selise @ 52

from Michael Klare (Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum.”) interviewed this morning.

we’re all fighting over control of the oil

This has never made sense to me. Suppose that the Chinese reach a deal to purchase the entire oil output of Iraq. It’s just another bilateral contract on a market that is world wide, and the supply of oil doesn’t change, nor does the marginal supply that sets the price. If Iraq were the only oil supply, so that hoarding it would preclude others from having any, then the arguments about oil would make sense. But that has never been the case. Oil is supplied worldwide and the market is worldwide. Hugh?

Isn’t it about the mercenary aims of extraction rights, royalties, etc.?

Also, it’s hard for me to believe they’re not doing it for the geopolitical aim of leverage. For example, why did they want a pipeline through Israel, but not pipelines through Iran. Aren’t all pipelines just the same? It’s not to stop some entity like OPEC from “hoarding” the oil and thereby blackmailing us — it’s to allow us to do the blackmailing, even at risk to our own economy. But I’m not expert, not hardly.

Scarecrow @7 If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. The only claimed success on Iraqi benchmarks is de-de-Baathification!

rwcole @ 25

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

I think he only gives them. Ask Jeff G.

Diane, I personally will never do anything to hurt my employer just to further political BS.

What you are suggesting doesn’t just hurt the big boys – it hurts the little guys. It hurts the mom & pops. It hurts the middle and lower class more than any “symbolic” one-day “general strike” could ever hurt the big boys who NEED to be hurt.

This whole “general strike” thing is ridiculous.

oddmommy @ 61:

Thank you very much for your comment. I feel somewhat vindicated since, as you pointed out, I REALLY was more or less throwing the subject our for discussion.

-MS

Brendan

It appears to me that power in Iraq is descending down from the central govt to local leaders- and not to elected local leaders but to non-elected leaders- Sheiks.

Whether or not this is tribalism I leave to your better informed mind.

Oops, I meant oddmommy @ 67…

-MS

egregious @ 20

General strike?

No thank you. I doubt the children waiting to get heart surgery in Russia would understand the political points involved.

OK, maybe I’m very naive, but how would we be hurting kids in Russia by trying to take our country back?

BTW, I’ll be in Russia on 6 November

Re: colonialism wreaking havoc:

In the late nineteenth century, many African countries were also cobbled together across ethnic and tribal lines by Great Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal.

OT – via atrios, not happy news (actually, atrios called it moronic):

Democratic leaders in Congress now recognize they don’t have the votes to impose a timetable for withdrawal. The question remains: Where do we go from here?

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), a retired vice admiral, says partisan gridlock in Congress has allowed a military man’s report to dictate the terms of the debate. He’s right.

Instead, Sestak said, Democratic leaders should set aside their demands for immediate withdrawal “and begin to help author a comprehensive regional security plan that accepts the necessity for a deliberate redeployment.”

Republican leaders, in turn, should press the Bush administration to “work diplomatically with Iran and Syria during this deliberate redeployment,” Sestak said.

Sestak has been among those Democrats who think that setting a “date certain” for withdrawal is the best way to force Iraqis to assume more responsibility.

It’s lose lose for the next pres. W drop in a load of shit and there’s no way to get out of the toilet smelling like a rose.

If the next pres can… he of she will be performing a miracle.

I read up on General Strikes of the past. The one in Seattle at the beginning of the century was a great success. It kept essential services running, and had one of the best organized methods of delivering food and emergency safety within the city. Everything was shut down, but nothing was destroyed except the coffers of the rich. It was probably one of the best examples in history because the strikers won and they did it by keeping civil.

brendan @ 62:

And also to many African countries as well. See my 81.

rwcole @ 25

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

Subjective opinion only, but I think he’s been getting lips for years from Condi. She knows when to keep them shut and open them up for him and they’ll say and do whatever he wants them to do. She doesn’t blow and tell is all.

18 mon ths away, and the democrats are so fucking dumb they’re going to let it get dumped on them again.

losers. that’s all they are is losers.

james @ 66

njprogressive @ 50

One of the best accounts of this is Margaret Macmillan’s book Paris 1919

Nice to finally find someone else who has read that book!

Excellent background material on what that part of the world was like at the creation and some very good information on the Treaty of Versailles that led to Weimar and the fascist aftermath.

The book all these pseudo-scholars and pundits have read is Froomkin’s book. That’s where they come off with these blithe announcements that Iraq is just a bunch of tribes. The chapter on the creation of the Palestinian Mandate is, naturally, a whitewash.

james @ 80

egregious @ 20

General strike?

No thank you. I doubt the children waiting to get heart surgery in Russia would understand the political points involved.

OK, maybe I’m very naive, but how would we be hurting kids in Russia by trying to take our country back?

BTW, I’ll be in Russia on 6 November

If you want me not to work for a day, that’s what doesn’t get done.

im4mary @ 70

Sorry if I’m repeating anyone since I haven’t read the comments yet, but our troops will be in Iraq to protect Bush’s buddy, Mr. Hunt’s future investments.

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Halliburton needs protection too, while a few individuals reap substantial profits. Is Cheney still a shareholder, by the way?

Far as I know he’s still on their payroll. If he isn’t, blind trusts are all the rage in DC.

Cheeny had millions in stock options at $7 share. HAL is 37.20 today. It reached $70 and split once or twice in the past few years. Cheeny has stratospheric wealth. The world is his monopoly board, now.

FYI-

Naomi Klein has done it again. Her new book “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism“ is one I can’t wait to read. My Harpers came yesterday, and it contained an article of hers excerpted from the book.

Depressing but thoroughly illuminating read. There’s a Green Zone coming to a suburb near you.

Anyone not familiar with her oughta read her stunning “Baghdad Year Zero.” Another bull’s-eye piece of reportage.

Wingnuts try to dismiss her ad hominem by calling her a “radical leftie,” but her assemblage and analysis of facts is comprehensive and largely bulletproof.

Go to her Shock Doctrine site, and read the various articles, excerpts, and reviews. Great, and necessary stuff.

brendan @ 73

Scarecrow @ 63

This has never made sense to me. Suppose that the Chinese reach a deal to purchase the entire oil output of Iraq. It’s just another bilateral contract on a market that is world wide, and the supply of oil doesn’t change, nor does the marginal supply that sets the price. If Iraq were the only oil supply, so that hoarding it would preclude others from having any, then the arguments about oil would make sense. But that has never been the case. Oil is supplied worldwide and the market is worldwide. Hugh?

Isn’t it about the mercenary aims of extraction rights, royalties, etc.?

Also, it’s hard for me to believe they’re not doing it for the geopolitical aim of leverage. For example, why did they want a pipeline through Israel, but not pipelines through Iran. Aren’t all pipelines just the same? It’s not to stop some entity like OPEC from “hoarding” the oil and thereby blackmailing us — it’s to allow us to do the blackmailing, even at risk to our own economy. But I’m not expert, not hardly.

Ah — pipelines can be monopoly facilities, and can be used to exercise market power — as Europe relearned wrt to the Russion gas pipe lines. And I agree that Iraqis should avoid concessions that grant to much of the economic surplus to the developers. I was talking only about the market for the commodity oil (or group of commodities — as in different grades)

“During World War I the British and French divided the Middle East in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Treaty of Sèvres, which was ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the advent of the modern Middle East and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which then consisted of two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen”

Will we ever learn? Isn’t it time we stopped imposing our will on others?

rwcole @ 78

Brendan

It appears to me that power in Iraq is descending down from the central govt to local leaders- and not to elected local leaders but to non-elected leaders- Sheiks.

Whether or not this is tribalism I leave to your better informed mind.

Appears to you from where? I’m not presenting myself on an expert on Iraq, I’m just being more skeptical than you about the quackish diagnoses and prescriptions of people like Biden and Krauthammer.

Michael in Park Slope @ 61

kirk murphy @ 39:

I’ve got to take issue with your implication that I am pro- “imperial hubris” on the part of the US (see my post @ 28). The suffering of the Iraqi people was brought on by our illegal intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state, and MUST, therefore be laid at our doorstep, and figure prominently in any cessation of hostilities.

Further, it seems to me that much of the suffering which you describe might be relieved if the warring factions were separated, whether by us or the Iraqis themselves.

-MS

Michael, I agree with your statement (in italics above) and the values it reflects.

But I’m a shrink, not a telepath, and the words in italics didn’t appear in your earlier comments.

Certainly not in your 28

brendan @ 21:

I did not mean to imply that the partition of Iraq was some sort of a “clinical operation.” And, I’m not certain that, should it come to pass, it would be the US who would cause it to: there are, I believe, many Iraqis (certainly many Iraqi Kurds) who would not be unhappy with that turn of events, no?

-MS

I apologize for choosing my words poorly: the vast majority of American people whom I hear or read advancing partition as a potential “solution” to our imperial Occupation don’t evince your clear awareness of our illegal intervention.

Again, I apologize for suggesting you are among them.

Scarecrow @ 63:

China has also been making deals recently with many oil-rich African countries (Angola comes rapidly to mind) to fuel its humongous economic expansion.

egregious @ 89

james @ 80

OK, maybe I’m very naive, but how would we be hurting kids in Russia by trying to take our country back?

BTW, I’ll be in Russia on 6 November

If you want me not to work for a day, that’s what doesn’t get done.

I’m sure we could get you an exemption from the strike committee.

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, and believe me you I would love to see it happen; but look, we are dealing with people who have dropped the ball on almost every “priority” that’s landed in their court. It ain’t gonna f****g happen, as I think rwcole has previously observed.

The current poll at CNN.com:

What do you think of the plan to cut the number of troops in Iraq by 5,700 by the end of the year?
About right 20% 15309
Too few 71% 53300
Too many 9% 6832
Total Votes: 75441

Looks like Shrub didn’t win many hearts and minds last night.

Scarecrow @ 63

This has never made sense to me. Suppose that the Chinese reach a deal to purchase the entire oil output of Iraq. It’s just another bilateral contract on a market that is world wide, and the supply of oil doesn’t change, nor does the marginal supply that sets the price. If Iraq were the only oil supply, so that hoarding it would preclude others from having any, then the arguments about oil would make sense. But that has never been the case. Oil is supplied worldwide and the market is worldwide. Hugh?

it’s not about access or price… it’s about geopolitical power in the great game. if we control the spigot then we have veto power over every economy that depends on iraqi oil (china, europe,…?)

p.s. i believe the percentage of oil on the worldwide market is decreasing as more of it is getting tied up in long term contracts (esp by china).

rwcole @ 12

Hunt won’t put a penny into Iraq unless he’s sure that the US will always be there to protect his investment- seems odd to be buyin oil from people who don’t officially own it though? Strange times.

You know, Bush can talk about a long-term relationship and basically say we will be in Iraq permanently and declare Iraq an ally, but he really doesn’t have the authority to do that. There is no current government in Iraq with which to have a relationship. There is no one there that can make a decision to sign a treaty with us, and there is not likely to be a real government there anytime before Bush leaves office. I say this is a unilateral “relationship” based on George Bush’s illusionary determination. He can say Iraq is a sovereign country, but he is not treating them as a sovereign country.

Great pieces Scarecrow. Impeachment is the only way to stop these criminals.

Give Impeachment a chance!

hackworth@90

Conflict of interest, anyone?! Nothing I haven’t literally yelled to my representative’s poor receptionist!

You’re impeached for getting a bl*wjob but be a Rethuglican and you can ride it out, pardon your friends, and break just about every fucking law all in the name of conservative, moral values.

It just doesn’t end!

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

What’s wrong with this picture?

al-Asad air base, 100 miles west of Baghdad.

Biodun @ 33

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

brendan @ 62

Biodun @ 33

Re partition:

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were forged from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by Great Britain and France after World War I.

I’m glad you made this comment. The same justification of partitioning could easily be applied — and perhaps soon will be — to Lebanon and Syria. Or Iran.

Brendan, all true, and I do hear what you say, but does not practicality get in the way? Iraq under Saddam and his predecessors, all the way back close to Faisal’s founding, probably had the most educated and secular swociety.

We have almost utterly and completely destroyed that entity. Is the disagreement here between those who consider themselves realists and think Iraq as been irretrievably broken by the US and those who think it as not irretrievably broken?

The US is also not helping the Lebanon return to its wonderful condition pre-1975, either, with its one-eyed, unchecked support for Lebanon’s southern neighbour.

Scarecrow @92:

I know you were. From what I take it you were addressing the common and publicly sanctioned notion that the oil there is somehow in our legitimate “national interest”, when it’s really about a constellation of narrow interests.

I also left out “also” in my first sentence.

Brendan@88:

Did you mean David Fromkin’s book or has Froomkin written one also?

brendan @ 73

Also, it’s hard for me to believe they’re not doing it for the geopolitical aim of leverage. For example, why did they want a pipeline through Israel, but not pipelines through Iran. Aren’t all pipelines just the same? It’s not to stop some entity like OPEC from “hoarding” the oil and thereby blackmailing us — it’s to allow us to do the blackmailing, even at risk to our own economy. But I’m not expert, not hardly.

my bold.

i think this is exactly right…. even, iirc, explictly written about. i should go looking for some quotes/links.

Some seem to be saying that the US should actively support formal partition. Others say that partition is occuring in a De Facto manner because of the weak central govt.- that it’s inevitable- so the US should just let it happen..

It’s not clear that the US could engineer a partition even if it wanted to- it COULD encourage the groups that want to split off anyway- and perhaps it is.

it’s not about access or price… it’s about geopolitical power in the great game. if we control the spigot then we have veto power over every economy that depends on iraqi oil (china, europe,…?)

This is exactly the misconception I’m trying to debunk. By controlling only one of many spigots you don’t affect the world market unless you are a pivotal supplier and you turn the spigot off. Getting control of the spigot just to turn it off is not what most want to do, especially when the spot price is hovering at $80/bbl. Many spigots fill the world market — the pool of oil — and all buyers buy from the pool, and the price is set by the marginal supplier at any moment.

I know this is not the common understanding, but t would be cheaper for the US economy and more conducive to economic growth, if the US forced the Iraqs to sell all their oil to China, then pulled all their troops out of Iraq. And the pricxe of oil would likely fall.

kathleen @ 102

Great pieces Scarecrow. Impeachment is the only way to stop these criminals.

Give Impeachment a chance!

Impeachment is a relic. It was trivialized by the Republics and is being drowned in a bathtub by the Democrats.

In case anyone missed Andrew Sullivan’s critique of the speech last night. He nails it.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
A Humbled President

maunga @105:

“Is the disagreement here between those who consider themselves realists and think Iraq as been irretrievably broken by the US and those who think it as not irretrievably broken?”

Yes, but I don’t think anyone here has real emprical grounds for considering himself a “realist” on Iraq and lot of these people’s arguments seem recycled from the ether and op-ed pages (often by way of that Froomkin book, as I mentioned) — unconsciously, I think.

oddmommy @ 98

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, and believe me you I would love to see it happen; but look, we are dealing with people who have dropped the ball on almost every “priority” that’s landed in their court. It ain’t gonna f****g happen, as I think rwcole has previously observed.

Couldn’t agree more. As much as it needs to happen, in a million years the current dem leadership does not possess the where-with-all to get it done.

kirk murphy @ 95:

Heartily accepted, of course…

-MS

I haven’t heard what happens to the Iraq economy after all the oil has been pumped out. What would there GNP be then?

james @ 107

Brendan@88:

Did you mean David Fromkin’s book or has Froomkin written one also?

Yes. Fromkin.
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-En…..amp;sr=1-2

This is another, perhaps similar, hypothesis if you will. It’s lengthy but very interesting.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

For those confused re:partition (and its consequencies), read about the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which created the League of Nations, which then mandated the partitions in question.

oddmommy @ 98

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, and believe me you I would love to see it happen; but look, we are dealing with people who have dropped the ball on almost every “priority” that’s landed in their court. It ain’t gonna f****g happen, as I think rwcole has previously observed.

Did we think Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Alberto Gozales, Rove etc. etc, would be gone…well “kind of” gone.

Our congress is afraid to look at the numbers…the American people are tired of this hogwash. I swear the Republicans would be smart to trump the chicken shit Pelosi and start the push for Impeachment..they could grab many drifting Republicans, and even some Democrats (maybe many) if they were to initiate Impeachment. Cheney and Bush are not the “real republicans” and the “real Republicans” know it.

Republicans push for Impeachment. I swear this would work for them. The only thing that would work. Otherwise they lose.

rwcole @ 108

Some seem to be saying that the US should actively support formal partition. Others say that partition is occuring in a De Facto manner because of the weak central govt.- that it’s inevitable- so the US should just let it happen..

It’s not clear that the US could engineer a partition even if it wanted to- it COULD encourage the groups that want to split off anyway- and perhaps it is.

It seems to me that there will be a certain amount of partition whether we want it or not. We have caused such hatred and distrust amoung the various factions that they may very well separate themselves when (?) this is over. At least for a time. It’s not for us to decided anyway.

ccmask @ 116

I haven’t heard what happens to the Iraq economy after all the oil has been pumped out. What would there GNP be then?

No one cares what happens to Iraq once the oil is gone.

Both the ABC and the NBC TV networks rolled over for Bush on their morning shows GMA and Today. ABC scoured the land to find someone to comment on the Bush speech, and whom did they find? None other than St. John of the Media. And the audience was tense with anticipation as to what exactly McCain would say about Bush’s speech.

For NBC, there was Tim Russert himself, he of the Libby trial fame whose Sunday news show Meet The Press is fondly known as “Tool Time” in the White House because “we control the message” on MTP. Russert blathered on about how the Democrats in Congress would have to shut the government down in order to compel Bush to withdraw troops. Yes, we have all heard the numerous calls from Democrats in Congress to shut the government down as Gingrich and the Republicans did to Clinton.

Could not either of NBC and ABC featured an opponent of the war commenting on Bush’s speech instead of these two compromised individuals?

jim oconnor @ 93

“During World War I the British and French divided the Middle East in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The Treaty of Sèvres, which was ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the advent of the modern Middle East and Republic of Turkey. The League of Nations granted France mandates over Syria and Lebanon and granted the United Kingdom mandates over Iraq and Palestine (which then consisted of two autonomous regions: Palestine and Transjordan). Parts of the Ottoman Empire on the Arabian Peninsula became parts of what are today Saudi Arabia and Yemen”

Will we ever learn? Isn’t it time we stopped imposing our will on others?

What’s really rich is that neoconservatives presented themselves as neo-Wilsonians interested in undoing the results of French and British imperialism. See? Smash the Iraqui state — no more of those perfidious Picots and Sykeses.

There’s only one they esteem: Balfour.

I need info and am sure someone here can tell me what I need to know. What was the official US stand on oil companies taking a certain percentage of Iraqi oil profits? I think I remember that the Iraqi government refused to write the legislation. Any links would be appreciated.

Thanks.

oddmommy @ 98

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, and believe me you I would love to see it happen; but look, we are dealing with people who have dropped the ball on almost every “priority” that’s landed in their court. It ain’t gonna f****g happen, as I think rwcole has previously observed.

You are right which is why the ball is now in our court.
Forget the Democrats; as a party they are moribund, on their way out the door.
Sure would be nice if Democrats who have had it with them would change their party affiliation to something like the Greens, an organization that is already existent that we might be able to work with.

Large enough numbers leaving the party would unsettle the Democrats and millions of new members coming in would embolden the Greens.

Of course the wonderful history the left has of internecine warfare would probably scuttle any attempt at challenging the Dems so maybe this is all just hoohah and I should pick up a good history book and read what it was like when people actually gave a shit, you know, in the 30s when they were fighting for what the Democrats so blithely let the GOP destroy in the past 26 years.

Scarecrow @ 110

it’s not about access or price… it’s about geopolitical power in the great game. if we control the spigot then we have veto power over every economy that depends on iraqi oil (china, europe,…?)

This is exactly the misconception I’m trying to debunk. By controlling only one of many spigots you don’t affect the world market unless you are a pivotal supplier and you turn the spigot off. Getting control of the spigot just to turn it off is not what most want to do, especially when the spot price is hovering at $80/bbl. Many spigots fill the world market — the pool of oil — and all buyers buy from the pool, and the price is set by the marginal supplier at any moment.

I know this is not the common understanding, but t would be cheaper for the US economy and more conducive to economic growth, if the US forced the Iraqs to sell all their oil to China, then pulled all their troops out of Iraq. And the pricxe of oil would likely fall.

Big Daddy China! The fact that they control us must really piss off the US powers-that-be! And, Putin is trying to re-establish Soviet-style power in Russia too. And the cycle continues.

Christy should be here in a minute or two with a new thread. Thanks for the comments folks.

Re: impeachment:

Folks, I hate to break this news, but…it ain’t gonna happen. (Oddmommy @ 98 is right.)

Diane @ 64

The only thing that will make a difference is the economic impact of a general strike. Excuse me, egregious? I’m sure that people (like me) calling for a general strike can exempt people performing emergency surgery. I’m not sure why people aren’t discussing actually DOING something. After all, most of the people writing on this board have been CALLING for something for a long, long time. Nothing’s going to change unless we change it. Before people write comments rejecting a General Strike out of hand, please read Garret Keizer’s persuasive article in Harpers, and argue against it on the merits. I would say that 95% of people working are not working in emergency health care.

Diane, I love the idea of a Generalish strike targeting only the megacorps (not the mom & pops).

As far as public sector health care strikes – our public health system has been broken and defunded since the last great wave of mass strikes.

Our public health care system has NO surge capacity – working every day, we don’t have the capacity to meet our patients’ needs.

And they suffer from the wait.

Shutting down for even a day will increase that suffering.

Same thing with the basic public service programs (food stamps, Social Security, General Assistance).

Rather than pick a fight one can’t win (convincing public hospitals and clinics to close), why not advocate for a General Shut-Down that leaves the lifeline services out of the equation?

If we stay in Iraq, the US will also be a “failed state.”

Speaking of Colonialism…from ‘Heart of Darkness’ -

“‘Exterminate all the brutes!’” (p. 50)

‘This is a comment written in the margin of Kurtz’s report to the International Society for the Suppression of Savage customs.’

http://www.novelguide.com/hear…..uotes.html

marymccurnin @ 125

I need info and am sure someone here can tell me what I need to know. What was the official US stand on oil companies taking a certain percentage of Iraqi oil profits? I think I remember that the Iraqi government refused to write the legislation. Any links would be appreciated.

Thanks.

The US policy was to support pillage and plunder but not rape.

-GSD

Dear President George W. Bush:

Thanks for spending U.S. Federal Tax Dollars for your private war.

PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout

Christy’s new thread is ready.

Christy’s up!

oddmommy @ 98

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, and believe me you I would love to see it happen; but look, we are dealing with people who have dropped the ball on almost every “priority” that’s landed in their court. It ain’t gonna f****g happen, as I think rwcole has previously observed.

If the Dems realize that this mess is going to end up in their laps and they will be blamed for the chaos thereafter, they will vote to impeach.

Why don’t they understand this ?

Biodun @ 129

Re: impeachment:

Folks, I hate to break this news, but…it ain’t gonna happen. (Oddmommy @ 98 is right.)

I wonder, Biodun…

the Dem leaders fear the Rethugs more than they fear us.

Can we change that?

New thread with Christy

Scarecrow @ 110

it’s not about access or price… it’s about geopolitical power in the great game. if we control the spigot then we have veto power over every economy that depends on iraqi oil (china, europe,…?)

This is exactly the misconception I’m trying to debunk. By controlling only one of many spigots you don’t affect the world market unless you are a pivotal supplier and you turn the spigot off. Getting control of the spigot just to turn it off is not what most want to do, especially when the spot price is hovering at $80/bbl. Many spigots fill the world market — the pool of oil — and all buyers buy from the pool, and the price is set by the marginal supplier at any moment.

I know this is not the common understanding, but t would be cheaper for the US economy and more conducive to economic growth, if the US forced the Iraqs to sell all their oil to China, then pulled all their troops out of Iraq. And the pricxe of oil would likely fall.

You’re right. There’s no argument here.

But what exactly makes a pipeline, then, a tool for leverage?

Another reason the concessions are an issue, by the way, is that that’s how you control the host government of the oil producing country.

I always thought it was about Israeli strategic interests (not least of all position for a war with Iran) more than oil, so I can be convinced on an argument that minimizes the importance of physically controlling the oil supply. Nevertheless, it is clearly about control of oil in some essential way I’m too ignorant to penetrate.

Kathleen@120

I also think that the Democrats aren’t much better (if at all) than the Republicans: they’re politicians. This has been a long time in the making. Both sides are feeding from the corporate trough and others ultra-wealthly venues.

In America’s dreamquest to have everything now, we’ve lost sight by being too busy working and playing to care what has been going on in Washington and we’ve been fed bullshit for just as long.

Technology has not necessarily been an asset. We might be tuned in, plugged in, etc. but we’ve zoned ourselves out. We’re all asleep at the wheel.

Unless the American People are brave enough to engage in a new revolution, there will be no more America as we (thought we) knew it. I’m all for impeachment; nothing personal to others, but excusing our leaders of not pursuing it is defeatist at best and providing them a similar excuse not to.

Our views should be on every streetcorner, overpass, and other places for every eye to see. Believe me, I know that’s alot easier said than done. Call me hypocritical because I have not done so partially because I live in a veeerry conservative state (it rivals the Taliban, sometimes I think!) with a puppet for a senator. My representative (one; baby, my state’s popular!), a Democrat, won’t discuss the issues with me either. Because, you see, I don’t give enough money to her campaign to warrent a conversation!

If this sounds defensive, I don’t mean for it to be personal by any means. Our nation is in a very sad state of affairs, and I really don’t think that our countrymen are willing or able to understand it.

I apologize for any inadvertant rudeness I may have presented!

The Hunt deal is still just a public relations ploy. It has two major problems. The first is that it has been declared illegal by the central government. It will likely be hard to find the investment capital necessary to undertake the project until the legalities are sorted out. It’s too big a gamble. Similarly, physical security may be difficult. Such development could easily become a target for Shias, Sunnis, and even disaffected Turkomans.

I see this more as recognition that the Kurds will have some say over the development of oil in their region and a move by Hunt to ingratiate itself with the Kurds in the hopes of winning some concessions further down the road when the situation has stabilized.

Scarecrow @ 110

it’s not about access or price… it’s about geopolitical power in the great game. if we control the spigot then we have veto power over every economy that depends on iraqi oil (china, europe,…?)

This is exactly the misconception I’m trying to debunk. By controlling only one of many spigots you don’t affect the world market unless you are a pivotal supplier and you turn the spigot off. Getting control of the spigot just to turn it off is not what most want to do, especially when the spot price is hovering at $80/bbl. Many spigots fill the world market — the pool of oil — and all buyers buy from the pool, and the price is set by the marginal supplier at any moment.

I know this is not the common understanding, but t would be cheaper for the US economy and more conducive to economic growth, if the US forced the Iraqs to sell all their oil to China, then pulled all their troops out of Iraq. And the pricxe of oil would likely fall.

my apologies scarecrow, perhaps i misunderstand.

i agree with you… if lower oil prices and a healthy US economy were their primary goal. i don’t think that’s the case. the US economy is a secondary issue in so far as it affects their wealth and power.

was trying to describe their goals (as i understand them). especially under conditions of peak oil, most everyone is a pivotal supplier. controling the spigot also means turning it up as well as turning it off. for example, for forcing prices lower just before an important election (we’ve seen that happen). the saudis have been fufilling this role (under an agreement made, i think, first by fdr?), but under conditions of peak oil the saudis have far less control of the world oil market.

there’s all kinds of market manipulation the neocons (and some of the neolibs) like… for example, there was some talk a couple of years ago about forcing drastically lowering world oil prices in order to put economic pressure on iran and venezuala.

but obviously you are the energy market spec*alist…. i should think more about this… any references you’d recommend i read?

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

Scarecrow @ 63
Why is the USA fighting a colonial war to control Iraq oil? Two words “Peak Oil”; also, throw in the melting of the Artic ice cap and outsourcing. America assured a world marketplace of oil paid with dollars through alliances and the US Navy. This worked fine in a world awash in oil. But not when the supply is diminishing and weather producing instant hurricanes on top of Gulf oil fields.

China will make an exclusive contract with Iran or whoever to keep their cars running. They know well if they loose the Mandate of Heaven, the Chinese masses will throw them out and their heads will roll.

The loss of 12% OPEC production and if Asia cashes their treasury bills will assure that anyone in the United States that is not within walking distance of public transportation is screwed; as good as reason as any for the hoi polloi to storm gated communities and overthrow America’s wealthy autocracy.

Ann in AZ @ 101

rwcole @ 12

He can say Iraq is a sovereign country, but he is not treating them as a sovereign country.

That he certainly does not. He flew in to a US base and the ’sovereign’ Iraqi government was totally unaware of this until too late. Is this the protocol for the POTUS in dealing with a sovereign country?

Non Iraqis debating partitioning Iraq in itself is ignoring Iraqi sovereignty. The fact remains, US invasion and occupation destroyed a country, its infrastructure, its people’s sense of security and with that power vacuum in the centre it has become a fight between regional groups to assert control. This involves Shia against Shia in the south, Kurds against Arabs and Turkmen in the north, Shia cleansing of Baghdad of Sunnis and Sunni against Sunni in Anbar.

Saddam was no angel but neither is Bush or Cheney. Iraq, under him, had the highest literacy rate in the ME, best health care system in the ME (better than what the US has now), greatest degree of gender emancipation in the ME. Under Bush and Cheney, Iraq doesn’t have any civilian infrastructure to deliver services to its citizens, schools cannot function, a health care system in tatters, children malnourished and dying, …….

This debate of partition is so darned selfrighteous and arrogant that it defies belief.

I’m for impeachment if:

Bush is actually removed from office- not just a show trial in the house which accomplishes nothing

Cheney is actually removed too.

Since neither of these things has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening- I’m off the impeachment bus.

September 14th, 2007 at 7:57 am
brendan at #34 says:

One of my complaints is that multiple commenters now have suggested “partition” is merely some passive acquiescence to an inevitable course of events. They also seem ignorant of the context and provenance of these notions that Iraq is “just a bunch of tribes” and like assessements. There’s a geopolitical aim in pushing partition and the Democratic Party, and even people here, seem to be signing on to it. I don’t consider it a “change of course” that Biden, the hypocrite, is lamenting Bush after he originally voted for the war: his advocacy of partition is perfectly consistent with that vote.

So, what is accomplished by forcing them to stay one country whether they want to or not? If that is not what you’re suggesting, what would be your suggestion. And, you mention that:

There’s a geopolitical aim in pushing partition

What exactly is that geopolitical aim, and what is wrong with it?

rwcole @ 25

Won’t be any impeachment- unless Clusterfuck gets a blow job.

I have done a survey of friends. I have asked friends if they would step up to the plate and do what they have to do to get Bush or Cheney impeached. Lots of true Patriots out there, people willing to sacrifice and do their duty. More straight men than straight women willing to “step up to the plate”. That is according to my survey.

September 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
sona at #145 says:

Saddam was no angel but neither is Bush or Cheney. Iraq, under him, had the highest literacy rate in the ME, best health care system in the ME (better than what the US has now), greatest degree of gender emancipation in the ME. Under Bush and Cheney, Iraq doesn’t have any civilian infrastructure to deliver services to its citizens, schools cannot function, a health care system in tatters, children malnourished and dying, …….

My pulmonary spec*alist graduated from Baghdad University. He’s a great doctor; I’ve seen him for the last 4 years, and I like and respect him very much.

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

Ann in AZ @ 147

September 14th, 2007 at 7:57 am
brendan at #34 says:

One of my complaints is that multiple commenters now have suggested “partition” is merely some passive acquiescence to an inevitable course of events. They also seem ignorant of the context and provenance of these notions that Iraq is “just a bunch of tribes” and like assessements. There’s a geopolitical aim in pushing partition and the Democratic Party, and even people here, seem to be signing on to it. I don’t consider it a “change of course” that Biden, the hypocrite, is lamenting Bush after he originally voted for the war: his advocacy of partition is perfectly consistent with that vote.

So, what is accomplished by forcing them to stay one country whether they want to or not? If that is not what you’re suggesting, what would be your suggestion. And, you mention that:

There’s a geopolitical aim in pushing partition

What exactly is that geopolitical aim, and what is wrong with it?

Oh, your last one is a great question — I neither support nor don’t support partition, but I’d like to know the pros and cons. Perhaps someone will deign to inform us — brendan, sona…?

oh, and p.s., sona, The UK includes neither Canada nor Indonesia.

-MS

No Ms, I never suggested the UK includes Canada or Indonesia but that it includes N Ireland. I should know as a Brit myself who grew up during the worst years of US funded (unofficially) IRA bombing in the mainland to end Ulster’s Protestant discrimination against Catholics.

My point is that if you go far enough back in history instead of choosing your arbitrary point of time, Texas should be in Mexico, the USA should perhaps not exist at all or Canada for that matter or Australia. I am Australian too.

sona @ 151:

We are perhaps dealing with the non-essential matters here, but I can’t resist this:

Quoting from your response to me @ 58 (and a fairly impolite one it was):

“By that reasoning, the USA is also a made up country and absolutely no reason why it should exist at all in its present format or the UK which includes N Ireland and Canada and Indonesia and many many others.” (My emphasis added).

-MS

I never called for health services to stop, and I don’t think that’s what most general strikes have done. The impact should be to the every day economy. Don’t go to work if you’re work is “nonessential” – in other words, if you’d observe a snow day, don’t go to work on November 6. And try not to buy anything that day either. I don’t think anyone would suffer immeasurably if this was done, but it would make a very powerful economic statement.

If Sona is still here, what you said @ 145 is absolutely true, and I have made the same points over and over again, but the US has so demolished EVERYTHING in Iraq, surely it is legitimate to wonder if there can be a single-unit Iraq again and perhaps that it is so damaged that some form of partition is the only solution. As you may have read I myself think present Iraq should be federated with Turkey to create a state of geographical and economic might to match Iran and Sa’udi.

Michael in Park Slope @ 150

Ann in AZ @ 147

So, what is accomplished by forcing them to stay one country whether they want to or not? If that is not what you’re suggesting, what would be your suggestion. And, you mention that:
What exactly is that geopolitical aim, and what is wrong with it?

Oh, your last one is a great question — I neither support nor don’t support partition, but I’d like to know the pros and cons. Perhaps someone will deign to inform us — brendan, sona…?

oh, and p.s., sona, The UK includes neither Canada nor Indonesia.

-MS

I can’t definitively inform you, but I can deign to speculate. I think the Israelis, and, by extension, the current U.S. regime wanted to destroy Iraq as a power. Great powers have always sought to destroy rival states, or compromise weaker neighboring states through partition. Just look at Europe, with the division of Germany and the multiple partitions of Poland (in this case the filthy justifications for them even resemble the way our pundits talk about Iraq), or look at the breakup of the Ottoman Empire or the attempted partition of Turkey proper. Even a superficial knowledge of history (which is about all I have) should be enough to get you to see this. Above all, I’m simply astounded that the word “partition” doesn’t evoke these historical associations, and that it doesn’t have for you the connotations of rapaciousness that it should.

It’s not some fuckup that they disbanded the Iraqi army. We’ve had a lot of speculation on this site on whether “chaos” was intended or not. The better way to think of it is whether chaos was an avenue towards partition, i.e., the elimination of the Iraqi state.

A partitioned state, besides being a military nullity, is easier to control politically and establish bases in, in case you want the oil money, or want to attack Iran. Kurdistan, because of it’s ethnic separateness and national aspirations has been particularly hospital to our goals, and the Israelis, not coincidentally, have a strong intelligence presence there.

This is a very old game. Let’s wise up to it.

Let’s look at the poll of Iraqis taken in August, 2007 by BBC/ABC/NHK:

The poll was conducted by D3 Systems and KA Research in more than 450 neighbourhoods across all 18 provinces of Iraq in August, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%.

It was commissioned jointly by the BBC, ABC and Japan’s NHK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

Some of the findings:

More than 2,000 Iraqis responded to the poll nationwide.

[snip]

But 85% of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in US and UK forces.

[snip]

In terms of quality of life, 80% of Iraqis say the availability of jobs is bad or very bad, 93% say the same about electricity supplies, 75% for clean water, 92% for fuel.

And 77% of Iraqis say the ability to live where they want, without persecution, is bad or very bad.

[snip]

Sixty-two per cent of Iraqis still say Iraq should have a unified central government, and 98% say it would be a bad thing for the country to separate along sectarian lines.

[snip]

Overall, the Sunni community comes over as deeply depressed about its condition, not surprisingly given that it is the one whose degree of influence has been dramatically reduced by the changes since the US-led invasion, despite the efforts of the Americans and others to engage the Sunnis.

There is a sharp difference in each community’s confidence in the national government – 4% of Sunnis have a degree of positive confidence in the national government, compared with 58% of Shias.

Only 34% of Sunnis have confidence in the Iraqi army, compared with 83% of Shias. The figures for the police are 37% and 83% respectively.

Only 2% of Sunnis approve of Nouri al-Maliki’s performance, compared with 54% of Shias approve. But both communities think equally overwhelmingly (by 98%) that sectarian separation is a bad thing. Iraqis are also somewhat suspicious of their neighbours.

Seventy-nine per cent of them think that Iran is actively encouraging sectarian violence in their country, 66% think the same of Syria and 65% think likewise about Saudi Arabia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6986993.stm

98 percent of Iraqis polled say it would be bad thing for the country to separate along sectarian lines. That is amazing unanimity (I assume that some of those polled live in the Kurdish north as well). Can we please, please, please stop playing our geopolitical board games with the lives of the Iraqi people?

Yet, appallingly, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made very clear (in code) this week that such an amoral sectarian “divide and rule” policy is the ongoing de facto current agenda of the American occupiers in Iraq, never mind what the Iraqi people themselves would prefer. Americans are not just “overwatching” the fragmentation of Iraq into its 18 separate provinces – we are pushing that dissolution rather than building a nation. “Bribe a Tribe” is a good shorthand for it. Hunt Oil is just helping out where the Iraqi parliament has (unlike the corrupt Cabinet and its Ministries) withstood the pressure to do the occupiers’ bidding, despite all the bribes and threats we’ve deployed against its members.

And (building on brendan’s explanation @ 155) it seems clear to me that the reason Israel’s authoritarian government and their agents in the U.S., like A*P*C, prefer a divided and weak Iraq, is because the potential untapped oil reserves of Iraq are on the order of $20 TRILLION dollars. Under the control of one, united, strong national government, that wealth could mean a lot of things for the future Iraq, and Israel’s leaders would selfishly prefer to prevent another nearby self-governing oil-rich Arab nation (in spite of its own currently overwhelming military superiority and nuclear weapons stockpile – not to mention its on-call American Armed Forces “backstop”).

For more about the pre-1880 (and since) realities of the region of Iraq from a Norwegian scholar of the area (who I believe also makes the same point as brendan above, about the arbitrary meaninglessness of selecting some random date in Iraq’s past to justify and dictate what Iraq’s future should be, and thereby ignoring and dismissing the last 100 years or so of its modern urban development), see:

http://www.historiae.org/

Krugman puts forth an excellent analysis of Iraq. Following the money is always the best route.

Quote: “because the deal potentially puts a good deal of money into Iraqi Kurdish hands, which in turn potentially finances the separatist activities of the Turkish Kurdish, which Turkey has been quite unapologetic about suppressing.”

But if your aim is to destabilize the region and play off one group against the next, then it’s actually perfect to encourage separatism. If not, you would have a monolithic Iraq which would be a Shia Iraq – with Shia Iran next door…

I recall that Petraeus had words this summer with Al-Maliki over his use of Sunni militias (which had killed Shia) to fight Al Qaeda, with Al-Maliki reportedly wanting Petraeus out of the equation altogether.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/…..mpers.html

rwcole @ 14

Anyone seen a cogent discussion of Bush’s claim that he was going to do things to insure that the US would be in Iraq long after he leaves office?

Really, what is there to say? He’s going to leave us there and sink in so much investment that it will make any Dem look stupid for pulling us out.

So, the question, or test, is which Dem has the courage to do the right thing despite Dubya’s ‘trick’.

Ann in AZ @ 55

Bustednuckles @ 6

Makes you wonder how much stock of Hunts company Cheney owns now doesn’t it.

I can’t imagine that someone from Hunt Oil was one of the industry officials Cheney consulted with to set our energy policy.

Perhaps even worse is that Hunt is on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and as such receives a great deal of foreign intelligence information gathered by our massive intell apparatus. Think he’d use that for bidness purposes? Nah, couldn’t happen. Wudn’t be prudent.

kathleen @ 120

oddmommy @ 98

I respect the view of those who advocate for impeachment, …

… I swear the Republicans would be smart to trump the chicken shit Pelosi and start the push for Impeachment..they could grab many drifting Republicans, and even some Democrats (maybe many) if they were to initiate Impeachment. Cheney and Bush are not the “real republicans” and the “real Republicans” know it.

Republicans push for Impeachment. I swear this would work for them. The only thing that would work. Otherwise they lose.

The ball is in their court.

The Dem plan is straight-forward: call for withdrawal and if needed the removal of Bush & Cheney to get it done and to crush them politically if they don’t do it.

So, if the Repubs want to play ball they just have to grab a bat and step up to the plate.

kirk murphy @ 138

Biodun @ 129

Re: impeachment:

Folks, I hate to break this news, but…it ain’t gonna happen. (Oddmommy @ 98 is right.)

I wonder, Biodun…

the Dem leaders fear the Rethugs more than they fear us.

Can we change that?

The Internet changed that to some extent, but right now that’s not the issue.

We need to wait just a bit to see what the leaders of both parties in Congress do.

Grassroots need to know the lay of the land before committing resources and right now requires just a bit more waiting.

brendan @ 155

…
I can’t definitively inform you, but I can deign to speculate. I think the Israelis, and, by extension, the current U.S. regime wanted to destroy Iraq as a power. Great powers have always sought to destroy rival states, or compromise weaker neighboring states through partition.
…
A partitioned state, besides being a military nullity, is easier to control politically and establish bases in, in case you want the oil money, or want to attack Iran. …

This is a very old game. Let’s wise up to it.

Even now the Repubs are trying to do this to California through it’s electoral votes.