"LEAVE IRAQI'S ALONE" -REPUBLICANS

.
LET THEM SWALLOW THE OIL DEAL WE'VE SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS

THE WAR WASN'T ABOUT OIL, YOUR CHECK IS IN THE MAIL, OH, AND ABOUT YOUR MOUTH...

"Commentator" Says Democrats Infringing On Iraqi Sovereignty By Objecting To Bushco's No-Bid Oil Deals

These Republicans would have made the Fuhrer so proud! They have cleverly infiltrated the press with agents pretending to be objective, so that they are able to immediately attack any truth before it gets too far. It's Wunderbar! Herr Goebbels spirit lives! Anything can be turned around, if you only lie big enough, lie loud enough, and lie often enough. Achtung, Baby!

Democrats are responsible for the escalation in oil prices, because they wouldn't allow Republicans to drill everywhere. Never mind that dozens and dozens of US government oil-leases are going unused by the oil companies. Never mind that there is no actual shortage of supply. Never mind that demand is going down. Never mind that this is an engineered "crisis." Lie about it, meine kinder!

Democrats are responsible for speculation in the oil markets, never mind why, but now they are trying to interfere with these free markets. This is socialism, and not the National kind. If prices are frozen at these historically high and incredibly profitable levels, the free market will simply impose an instantaneous worldwide freeze on supplies, as if by magic, not collusion. So, don't f*ck with us, or the invisible hand of the market will choke your loved ones to death, you leftist degenerates!

Democrats do not understand these things. They do not understand the delicate balance in Iraq: Negotiating, or pretending to negotiate a deal that was set in stone years ago, with whatever puppet government happens to be there today, requires great theatrical skill. Democrats do not have this kind of acting ability. That is why der Schwarzenegger is a Republican, and in favor of oiling, I mean drilling on the coast of Coll-ee-fah-nee-yah, no matter what the Jews and homosexuals and Democrats think.

As to those Iraqi's, of course they signed a sweetheart deal! We have them surrounded. If they say no, we just march them outside, and let them be shot. Meine herren, if only we could do that here! It would only require a small expansion of the Second Amendment. Houston Uber Alles!
.
REUTERS
"Senators seek to stop Iraq oil deals"

" The U.S. senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to ask the Iraqi government to put off signing any oil contracts until agreement is reached on a national oil law. 'We fear that any such agreements signed by Iraq's Hydrocarbon Ministry without an equitable revenue sharing agreement in place would simply add more fuel to Iraq's civil war,' the senators wrote. The deals would heighten tensions in Iraq 'at the same time that American service members are fighting night and day to reduce the levels of violence,' they said. The State Department said the United States, which has 146,000 troops in Iraq, has no say in the matter. 'Since the United States has had no involvement in this, I'm not sure on what basis the United States could 'block' the Iraqi government from contracting it the way it sees fit," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey. 'It's a decision for the Iraqis to make.' "

HOUSTON CHRONICLE
"Bush: U.S. won't interfere with Iraqi oil deals"

" 'Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources,' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. 'And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that's for them and the Iraqis to decide," Perino added. 'But I don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved.' Likewise, Perino dismissed the senators' concerns as illogical. 'I'm curious as to why the Democrats seem to, on the one hand, want Iraq to take over more control of their own country, but on the other hand, want to continue to meddle in their business,' she told reporters. "

UPI
"Congress pressing Bush to block, reverse Iraqi oil deals"

" In a separate letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Schumer and Kerry called for Iraq to pass legislation governing the oil sector first. 'We ask that you work with the (government of Iraq) to ensure that they do not sign any agreements relating to oil or gas until they have passed a fair, equitable and transparent hydrocarbon revenue sharing agreement that benefits the Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and all other Iraqi citizens,' the senators wrote. Without a new law, Iraq is relying on regulations left over from Saddam. A draft oil law has been stalled in Parliament by internal Iraqi disputes over the extent foreign oil companies should be allowed into the national oil sector and how much control over the oil strategy will be given to local governments. Three companion laws -- revenue sharing, reconstituting the national oil company and reorganizing the Oil Ministry -- are further behind in the legislative process. Iraq is already splitting revenue by compromise between factions. Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill in a short press conference Tuesday said without a revenue sharing law the oil deals will cause more fractures. 'You can't blame Iraq for the desire to expand oil production,' Schumer said. 'However, signing oil contracts without a revenue sharing law is a recipe for disaster.' The three warned against possible perceptions that the war was fought to benefit international oil companies, and that no-bid contracts were not transparent. "

ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
"Big Oil's slick no-bid contracts will keep us mired in Iraq "

" A consortium of Western oil companies — the very definition of Big Oil — is on the verge of receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq, giving them access to one of the most sought-after prizes in the petroleum industry, according to The New York Times. Can it be mere coincidence that the leading companies in the deal — ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total — are the very same companies that Saddam Hussein threw out when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry more than three decades ago? The American public has been reassured, repeatedly, that petroleum had absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. President Bush, the oilman from Texas, has scoffed at the idea. So has Vice President Dick Cheney. When I raised the specter of 'petroleum wars' in a column dated Sept. 9, 2002, just as Bush was selling the idea that Saddam posed an imminent threat, I was assailed by critics, who called me 'naive,' among other choice descriptives. While I never believed that oil was the only reason for toppling Saddam, my critics weren't willing to concede petroleum played any role. ('The Bush administration is saturated with oil industry bigwigs. ... Their natural mindset is to assume that oil must be consumed ever more abundantly, even if that means going to war to preserve access to the supply,' I wrote.) Yet despite the vociferous denials, the four original partners of the Iraq Petroleum Co. (a misnomer, since all the companies are multinationals based in the U.S. or Western Europe) are about to receive contracts that allow them to service the fields in the country with the world's second-largest proven oil reserves. According to The New York Times, these are service contracts — paying the companies for their work — instead of the more lucrative licenses for oil deposits. But the contracts will give the global oil giants a leg up on more lucrative deals later on. To protect those oil fields, the U.S. would have to station troops in Iraq indefinitely. That may explain why Bush has been so determined to work out a deal for more or less permanent military bases before he leaves office. The war in Iraq has already lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II, and the projected cost is around a trillion dollars. That doesn't count the human toll — more than 4,000 U.S. troops dead and tens of thousands maimed and shattered, physically or mentally. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and millions displaced. The U.S. government could have spent $500 billion on an Apollo mission-like search for alternative energy and still had about $500 billion to hand to Americans as gasoline subsidies. And we would have been well on the way toward freeing ourselves from the troubled Middle East. "

REMEMBER, LIEBCHEN: THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT OIL! IT IS VERBOTEN TO BELIEVE THAT! HEIL DUBYA!

[Cross-posted at blog me no blogs.]
.
.

There's more: ""LEAVE IRAQI'S ALONE" -REPUBLICANS" >>

Telling The Truth

Was it just yesterday? Or the day before? That senile warmonger John McInsane had the big brass balls to tell Barack Obama he was going to instruct Obama about how peaceful Iraq was and how things are going so fucking well in Iraq?

Let's see, here's a few pertinent spittle-fleckings:

[...] McCain added, he [Obama, Ed.] will change his position on the war because of the success the U.S. is having there. “Sen. Obama was driven to his conclusion by ideology, not by the facts on the ground,” McCain said. “Success in Iraq is undeniable.”

The Seattle Times responds with an editorial that basically informs McInsane of what everyone else with a working brain cell already knows: the aged, cranky, nasty old Republican nominee is fuller of shit than a constipated cow. A pertinent snippet:

McCain is having a jolly time pretending he is the only candidate with enough cachet and experience to lead the U.S. on military matters, even offering to squire Obama around Iraq.

McCain's posturing would be silly one-upmanship if the costs of the war in Iraq and at home were not so enormous and never-ending. McCain has the wrong position. He supports continued military involvement in Iraq. Obama, more credibly, vows to end the war and bring troops home.

Kudos to the editorial writer! More than two-thirds of the American electorate is utterly sick and tired of this bogus war. Bombing the helpless populace of a small country that has done nothing to us is nothing less than a war crime. A war crime that has, incidentally, destroyed our economy and is threatening the combined economy of the rest of the world.

Does anybody remember the last time McInsane went to Iraq? March of this year. Protected by about 100 Marines, in full body armour, with helicopter gunships overhead, McInsane was photographed (at taxpayers' expense, of course) strolling about in Baghdad, proclaiming it safe. The old geezer conveniently forgot to mention to anyone during his recent spittle-flecked rant that his army escort would not let him go to the Shorja market where he had his picture taken last year, because it was "too unsafe."

Of course, someone who can't tell Sunni from Shi'a and doesn't even know how many troops we have in Iraq is hardly the authority on the war. If only fate wasn't tempted to give the old man the smackdown every time he opens his mouth and switches feet. Pertinent snippet:

McCain's comments about Mosul being "quiet" have also been criticized. On the day he made them, 30 Iraqis were killed by suicide bombings in the Mosul area.

Meanwhile, the town of Hit, near Baghdad, didn't want to be left out of the rush to smear a little egg on the erstwhile candidate's face. A suicide bomber in that town, no doubt having read or heard McLame's comments, rushed off to glory, taking ten people with him and wounding 12 others.

McLame displayed his usual tin ear on the issue:

McCain, speaking to reporters in Milwaukee, refused to acknowledge a mistake, saying that "I said we have drawn down. And we have drawn down."

Gee, where have we heard that refusal to admit making a mistake before? Oh, yeah, the previous two terms of Gee Dumbya Pumpkinhead.

In an attempt to defend the senile warmonger, his advisers said the flap amounted to nothing more than "nitpicking" about "verb tenses."

"It is the essence of semantics," said a frustrated Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, on a conference call organized by the campaign. "We're having this call about a verb tense."

Wow, they sure have learned their lessons well. They're borrowing from the arsenal of Karl Rove and Bill Clinton. Next they're going to tell us what the definition of "is" is. Good work, kids! No, let's rephrase that: Heckuva Job, Johnny!

In other convincing evidence of the peacefulness of Iraq, thousands of Iraqis turned out to protest the U.S. presence. Intelligence (a quality Mr. McInsane seems dreadfully short on) officials announced today that our progress in Iraq basically sucks wet monkey ass. The scheduled elections are already getting the Sunni mad at each other. Progress! Peace! Missing Limbs! Awakening Councils!

Is there anyone in Iraq that we haven't pissed off yet? Well, maybe McInsane's definition of "progress," "success," "drawdown," and so forth are not exactly the same as Merriam-Webster's or Oxford's OED, or, let's be honest, any fucking body else's.

Tell the truth, Mr. McCain. If you remember how that's defined any more, that is. And don't forget to tell all those American servicemen being blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan why you refuse to sign Jim Webb's GI Bill that would give them better benefits than the pile of steaming crap the Bush misadministration's been trying to feed them for the past X years.

Crossposted over at ThePoliticalCat

There's more: "Telling The Truth" >>

Politics: The Drumbeat For War in Iran

Persian Gulf regional map

Attention, people! The Bush/Cheney Misadministration is starting the drums beating for a war with Iran. Seymour Hersh warned us about this two years ago. Now that the elections are only six months away, what better present could the crooks and thugs in power deliver to John McInsane's presidential ambitions than to start yet another war?

Here's the evidence: Yesterday (April 11th, 2008), the Times told us that "new satellite photographs" have uncovered a secret launch site in Iran for long-range missiles. Iran has always claimed that this site and the launches therefrom are part of their civilian space program, by the way.

Yesterday (April 11th, 2008), AP informed us that a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Typhoon, trespassing in Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf (in order to access which body of water, vessels must first pass through the Straits of Hormuz, Iranian waters) "encountered"

... a small Iranian high-speed boat in the central Persian Gulf and warned it away by firing a flare, the Pentagon said Friday.

Two other similar Iranian boats in the area did not come as close.

The USS Typhoon tried unsuccessfully to establish radio contact with the Iranian boat after it came within an estimated 200 yards of the Typhoon on Thursday, outside Iranian territorial waters. A Navy official said the ship then fired the flare and continued on its way without incident.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said there were no signs any boat was armed.

Question: How exactly did the USS Typhoon "try unsuccessfully" to establish radio contact? Do they have Farsi speakers on board? Or was it the old tourist stratagem of "If they don't speak English just shout louder and slower"?

The Iranian authorities are claiming that there was no incident.

Today (April 12th, 2008), in the WahPoo, Staff Writer Karen deYoung tells us that Robert Gates, General Betrayus, and Ambassador Ryan Crockoshit have determined that Iran is the biggest threat to Iraq.

Consider this: Iraq is majority Shi'a. Iran is majority Shi'a. They are two of the very few majority Shi'a nations in the Islamic world.

The Sunni tribes of Iraq form the backbone of the "insurgency," about which not word one has been said of late. Saudi Arabia, home of Gee Dumbya's good friends, is Sunni. The Saudis follow the fundamentalist Wahhabiya flavour of Islam. Most of the hijackers who destroyed the twin towers were Saudi nationals.

Which of these players poses a greater threat to the U.S.?

We're fairly confident that, if asked, the Shi'a majority in Iraq would gladly embrace Iran as good friends and allies. It wasn't that long ago that Iranian President Ahmedi Nejad was greeted with flowers on an official visit to his good friend Nouri al-Maliki.

Don't let Gee Dumbya and his gang of thugs lie us into another war.

Crossposted over at ThePoliticalCat

There's more: "Politics: The Drumbeat For War in Iran" >>

Somebody Should Ask John McCain Why

AP/Mary Altaffer

he won't release his medical records, despite repeated requests, says Raw Story.

Senator McCain, you're in your 70s. Your grandfather died young (61 years), your father died at the age of 70, relatively young also. You've had repeated bouts of a particularly lethal form of cancer:

In 1993, McCain had a cancerous mole removed from his shoulder that proved to be melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, according to medical records he released in December 1999 when he was diagnosed with a recurrence [emphasis ours, Ed.] of the disease.

Melanoma is the most lethal form of skin cancer, blamed for 7,700 deaths annually in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. The organization also notes that 47,700 Americans will be diagnosed with the disease this year.

The Wall Street Journal says McCain's had four melanomas removed.

And you were tortured as a POW. You have to release your records. It's not an option for you. People, if the man does not release his medical records and his tax records, how can you vote for him? We're no spring chickens here at La Casa de Los Gatos, and we know the impact aging has had on our health.

And what about mental functioning? Eight years of a dumbkopf in the highest position in the land &mdash a man who can't string eight words into a correct sentence &mdash is plenty enough. Every time we walk into a room and find ourselves thinking, "Now, what did I come here for?" we wonder if that's what is making McCain repeatedly confuse Sunni with Shi'a, and putting al Qaeda in training in Iran, and telling undoubtedly horrified Israelis that Purim is the Jewish version of fucking Halloween, wouldja believe? And we're decades younger than that old fart.

You can't be serious, Senator. You owe it to voters to let them know if you're suffering from something that will make you hit the wrong button at the wrong time. If you can't keep yourself from hitting Rick Renzi, how can we trust you alone with Hu Jintao or Vladimir Putin? Assuming, of course, that you can remember who they are.

In other, more heartening, news, ABC's Martha Raddatz apparently found only one McCain supporter among the troops in Iraq, although she implied that there may be more. (Sure. They're probably Stateside already.) And this was after Snarly McCrashcart showed up to give his rah-rah talk on how they goddamned well volunteered for the fucking war and they could just fucking fuck themselves and stay there till Der Leader was good and ready for what remained of them to come home. Yeah, fuck you too, Dick. Send your worthless taxpayer-titsucking daughters to the frontline, why don't you? Surely they don't have "other priorities," do they? Video clip of Dick at Raw Story, in case you need to go on a diet.

Incidentally, it appears as if the vultures of the press, always ready to attack Hillary Clinton for any reason they can think of (boobs! She has boobs! Cackle! She cackles! crying! She CRIED! &mdash whatever, you worthless turds) haven't said word one about McCain's dragging his feet on releasing either his medical records or his tax records. Senator Clinton has released her tax records; Senator Obama released his a long time ago. Senator McCain, how about you step up to the plate and release yours?

While you're about it, please get your eyes checked. We're aghast at a Reuters headline telling us you "... see Iraq success." What the hell is this success, and where are you seeing it? All we see is about one million dead Iraqis, 2-3 million Iraqi refugees, Iraqi women forced into prostitution to feed their families and murdered for failing to adhere to sufficiently oppressive dress codes, millions of wounded and maimed Iraqi men, women, and children, over four thousand dead Americans, thirty or forty thousand wounded American troops, and goodness knows how many psychologically destroyed human beings. If this is your definition of success, perhaps we shouldn't allow you within a mile of the nuclear button. We're thinkin' you'd feel positively successalicious if you could press it and blow all of us up.

For those of you who think "success" means your friends, relatives, and fellow-citizens return pronto with all limbs intact, here's a petition you can sign to end the war in Iraq.

For those of you who'd like to impeach the sanctimonious, smarmy shits who are responsible for all that death and suffering, check out this PDF, sign it, encourage your neighbours and friends and relatives to sign it, and send it to the appropriate Congresscritter.

Somebody should ask McCain and that "ass-kissing chickenshit" (Admiral Fallon's words) General Betrayus whether success includes thousands of the people you trained taking their training and their weapons over to the other side.

Crossposted over at ThePoliticalCat.

There's more: "Somebody Should Ask John McCain Why" >>

Mehdi Army ready to rise up again in Iraq?

Moqtada al-Sadr is calling to extend a six-month cease fire, but many rank-and-file in the Shi’ite force are restive. On the flip side, the International Crisis Group said the Mehdi Army was “unassailable” in its strongholds and the U.S. military should not provoke it.

Too late on both sides, perhaps. The U.S. has arrested several so-called “rogue” members, which certainly has added to the restiveness directed toward Sadr.

There's more: "Mehdi Army ready to rise up again in Iraq?" >>

Iraq good news-bad news department on Sunni “groups”

Our military brass admits it has overcounted Sunni militiamen “concerned local citizens,” to the tune of 77,000 rather than the actual 60,000.

Good news? That’s that many fewer armed Sunni militia forces to possibly inflame Sunni-Shi’a issues, to put it mildly, in the future.

Bad news? That’s 17,000 fewer “concerned local citizens” than the Surge™ previously claimed credit for.

Ehh… the What-a-Gon will probably dismiss it as just another rounding error.

Oh, and don’t “concerned local citizens” sound kind of like “concerned citizens councils” so beloved of folks in places like Trent Lott’s Strom Thurmond-loving political world?

There's more: "Iraq good news-bad news department on Sunni “groups”" >>

MeK Cons Media At Third Attempt

Crossposted from The Newshoggers

Hardline U.S. rightwing blogs are beginning this evening to pick up a story about a petition in Iraq, organised by a hitherto unknown group called either the Independent National Democratic Tribes' Gathering or the Independent National Tribal Organization depending on which report you read, which condemns Iran for fomenting violence in Iraq.

The Washington Post writes:

"The Iranians, in fact, have taken over all of south Iraq," said a senior tribal leader from the south who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life. "Their influence is everywhere."

The unusually organized Iraqi rebuke illustrates the divisions that Iran has provoked among Iraq's majority Shiites. The prime minister and major political blocs are closely tied to Iran, but the petition organizers said many citizens are fiercely opposed to Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Several sheiks leading the campaign traveled to the capital from the southern province of Diwaniyah and showed The Washington Post and other news organizations an electronic file filled with images of signatures they said endorsed the petition. Their effort is being supported by the People's Mujaheddin Organization of Iran, or Mujaheddin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that is listed by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization but that nonetheless enjoys U.S. military protection in Iraq.


The petition, which the organizers said was signed by 600 sheiks, calls on the United Nations to send a delegation to investigate what it termed crimes committed by Iran and its proxies in southern Iraq.

"The most painful stab in the back of the Shiites in Iraq by the Iranian regime has been its shameful abuse of Shiite religion to achieve its ominous end," the sheiks said a statement. "The only solution and hopeful prospect for Iraq, and in particular the southern provinces, is the eviction of the Iranian regime from our homeland."

Hang on, I'm sure you're thinking, why is the Sheik so unwilling to be named if, presumably, his signature is already on this very public petition? And are so many Iraqis really willing to agree with the MeK, an organisation hated throughout Iraq for being Saddam's bully-boy henchmen?

Wait, there's more.

Reuters adds some more details. They saw "two thick bundles of notes which contained original signatures", not an electronic file, which was shown to them by the sheiks. At least, they say they are sheiks and that there are 600 of them.

The statement said that besides 600 Shi'ite tribal leaders, the petition was signed by a number of lawyers, engineers, doctors and university professors.

The group of sheikhs is the same one that told Reuters last month that Shi'ite Islamist political parties were imposing strict Islamic rules in southern Iraq and using their armed wings to create a state of fear.

And CNN adds even more:

The petition has the support of 14 members of the clergy and 600 sheiks. It also was signed by 25,000 women, the release stated.

"The most painful stab on the back of the Shiites in Iraq by the Iranian regime has been its shameful abuse of Shiite religion to achieve its ominous ends," the petition states.

The petition also is backed by the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran -- or Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) -- which seeks to overthrow the Islamic regime in Iran.

MEK has been labeled a terrorist group by the United States, Iraq and Iran -- all for different reasons -- but it continues to operate in southern Iraq under the protection of the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country.

The United States considers the group a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

And yet, of over 50 MeK claims about Iran's nuclear program over the past three years since the group first exposed that program, not one has proven true upon investigation by the IAEA. Maybe not so valuable intelligence after all. As to the "different reasons" for the groups description as being terrorists - the Iraqis labelled them for complicity in Saddam's crimes and are trying to have their protected status revoked, the Iranians accuse them of attacks inside Iran which have killed both soldiers and civilians, while the U.S. State Dept calls them terrorists because they killed US citizens and supported the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. All pretty good reasons, you might think, despite such a throwaway dismissal by CNN.

Finally, the Chinese newspaper People's Daily has even more, including more numbers:

"It is widely known that the Iranians have taken over all Iraq's southern provinces," said the Independent National Democratic Tribes' Gathering in a statement obtained by Xinhua on Thursday.

The statement said that more than 300,000 Iraqi Shiite Muslims in the Iraqi southern provinces have signed a petition accusing the neighboring Iran of fomenting violence and chaos in southern the war-torn country.

Among the signatories of the petition of the Shiites in southern Iraq are 14 clergies, 600 Sheikhs, 1250 jurists, 2,200 doctors, engineers, university professors and 25,000 women, the statement added.

That's a lot, isn't it?

But...

It isn't as many as when this story was last hawked around, back in June. Then, according to the MeK's own website, it was 450,000 members of the Iraqi tribes of Diyala who were condemning Iran's presence as part and parcel of expressing "full solidarity with the Mujahideen Khalq (MEK)"

But...

Even that is nothing compared to the attempt before that to hawk the self-same story. Back in June 2006, the MeK's political wing - the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which FOX News expert on Iran Alireza Jafarzadeh used to be spokesman for - announced that:

Solidarity Congress of Iraqi People announced the support of 5.2 million Iraqi's to a declaration condemning Iranian regime's meddling in their country. The declaration also lends support to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran [The MeK's other alias - C] whose presence in Iraq has acted as a major obstacle to mullahs' fundamentalist ambitions in Iraq. The announcement was made before a huge crowd of Iraqis in Ashraf City on June 17.

Ashraf City, by the by, is the MeK's own name for "Camp Ashraf" - the rather salubrious location, situated conveniently close to iraq's biggest munitions dump - where thousands of MeK members are "guarded" by a handful of US and Bulgarian troops.

Back then, the breakdown of the notable signatories to the petition was even more admirable:

121 political parties and social groups, 700,000 women, 14,000 lawyers and jurists, 19,000 physicians, 35,000 engineers, 320 clerics, 540 professors, 2,000 tribal sheikhs and 300 local officials among 5.2 million signitaries of the declaration.

Maybe it was the claim that fully a third of Iraq's population had signed something supporting such an odious terror group that lead to general disbelief and the story sinking without a trace.

So either the folk supporting the MeK against an alleged infiltration of the Iraqi government from top to bottom are changing their minds - by the millions - or the latest version is just the MeK scaling down their entirely fictitious nonsense to a more believable level.

Were it not for the fact that anti-Iranian rhetoric is currently fashionable, and is being stirred at every opportunity by U.S. neoconservatives both in and out of the White House, this latest story would have sunk without a trace too.

There's more: "MeK Cons Media At Third Attempt" >>

Tripartite Iraq? Bipartite? Or still unified, with new boundaries?

Abu Aardvark’s excellent article on what appears to be the final collapse of Sunni participation in the government of Iraq got me to thinking about what the longer-term results might be.

I know that a number of pundits, some historians and even a few American politicians have bandied about the idea of a tripartite Iraq, on Shi’a/Sunni Kurd lines. It’s usually presented as if this were the only realistic option (by politicians and pundits), or the most likely actual option (by historians).

In any case, a tripartite Iraq vs. current Iraq are presented as the only two outcomes, usually. But, the Sufi philosopher Idries Shah once said, “There are never just two sides to any situation,” and that is the case here.

For example, what if Sunnis, Shi’as, Iranians and Turks combine to do a partition of Poland move on the Kurdish state? Then, we’re down to a bipartite Iraq.

Or, what if Kurds and Shia’s stay together, with a Sunni area making a formal declaration of independence? Then we have a bipartite Iraq.

Or, what if the Saudis get so frustrated they issue an invitation to the Sunni area to let itself be taken under the Saudi wing? To appease Bush, they could make this as innocuous as possible, but then complete the annexation during the heat of the presidential election season or just after, confident they can then get away with it. Then, we have a still unified, but shrunken, Iraq, with an enlarged Saudia Arabia now having even more of both oil reserves and Falafist fundamentalists in its midst.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Watching Those We Choose.

There's more: "Tripartite Iraq? Bipartite? Or still unified, with new boundaries?" >>