Now Here’s a GREAT Suggestion....

The tag line in Frank Rich’s New York Times OpEd column this morning is terrific. Rich chapter-and-verses how stupid Repub candidate John McCain’s stance on the war in Iraq is and has been. Rich doesn’t particularly support Obama’s position on the war either though, mainly because there can be no positive outcome in Iraq no matter what is put forth. But Rich has this proposal: “Not that the Obama policy is foolproof either. As everyone knows, there are no good options in Iraq. Our best hope for a bipartisan resolution of this disaster may be for a President Obama to appoint Mr. McCain as a special envoy to Baghdad, where he can stay for as long as he needs to administer our withdrawal or 100 years, whichever comes first.” McCain being sent to Iraq to serve America in his last years sounds like a splendid and marvelously fitting idea. What’s not to like?

“There Was Suspicion “...I Guess So!

The New York Times reports this morning, “Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.” The NYT went on to say: “Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.” As the NYT understatedly stated, “There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract.” Of course the following cockroach claim was made by the Bush administration: “the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.” The NYT reported that a spokesman for The Iraqi Oil Ministry said, “the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.” The NYT further explained: “The Iraqi Oil Ministry said “the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.” So...how soon do you reckon the price for crude will go back down to $40 a barrel from the present $140 per barrel? Right! Or, as the NYT says, “The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry. They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.” There is still the problem of the civil war and the insurgents caused by the Republican invasion of Iraq which was entered into in order to secure these exact contracts. But at current oil prices the oil companies are more than willing to deal with war, death and privation. Five years later and 4101 American soldier deaths and the Republicans got what they came for. Lovely!

I Know, I Know...

I haven’t posted in ages. I was in God’s Country aka Brooklyn for a week and some other stuff was going on. Howsomever....I just want to say that Frank Rich’s column in the New York Times today is brilliant!!!!!! That’s it. BRILLIANT!!!!!