Women, kids, old, sick most at risk in Iraq, says Reuters. To which we say: Ho-hum. Old news. We've killed hundreds of thousands of these weaklings already, been killing them for years, with sanctions, bombs, snipers, chaos, deprivation, whatever. Who cares? You know what's really important? If Jim Baker can "seal his legacy in the realm of statesmen" by spraying enough perfume on the shitheap that Junior Bush has made of Iraq so that the high and mighty of the American Establishment can slither out of the mire without smelling too bad.
That's what it's all about, baby, that's the kind of thing that counts. How a lifelong, bloodstained bagman can become a "second Disraeli." How Hillary and Obama can nuance their positions to squeeze maximum political mileage out of the American-made mass slaughter in Iraq. How many he-man poses John McCain can strike on his knees as he grovels to the slavering extremists he thinks will make him president.
That's where the focus of our political discourse will be from here on
out. (With frequent side dishes of stern condemnation of the worthless
Iraqis for "failing" us, of course.) This time next year â€“ when U.S.
forces have either high-tailed it "over the horizon" into Kuwait or
else are hunkered down in the (supposedly) permanent bases from which
the Bush-Cheney faction have always intended to plunder the spoils of
the hydra-headed war they've engendered â€“ the chattering classes that
control the public debate will still be chewing the clot-smeared rags
of the Beltway power game.
Add a comment