Why are we holding Kurdistan?

Nation building anyone? More to come.

"Not all of Iraq is like Baghdad" -- Zalmay Khalilzad

Sanandaj

I am, as an Irishman and as a logician, not in favor of partitioning countries to cover up bad nation building or failed imperialism, but I have to wonder why the US is allowing Kurdistan to be held in to the current abortive version of iraq-oidia. Are we doing favors for our lukewarm ally, Turkey? Are we using kurds for bait in the "democratization" of iraq? Are we using kurds as a human shield until we can set up permanent bases in their confines? Have we promised their oil to some other faction? Have we promised their oil to some cronies of bushco?

Here's a link to Kurdistani news. Here's a link to blogs on Kurdistan.

American conservatism at stake?

Andrew Sullivan's Sunday London Times piece, There’s a new nasty party out there talks about some of the uphill fights facing both the republicans and the conservatives.

Think of it as a perfect storm of many, many scandals, meeting over the increasingly warm political water of the Iraq war and becoming something potentially more lethal. In many ways the entire future of American conservatism is at stake.

This is nuts!

New Freedom Commission on Mental Health

Punchy Palookas

Answering growing criticism in the U.S. and Australia, [cheney] defended the Iraq war as a "remarkable achievement" . . .

In oz this week, I suppose he feels no need to tell the truth in the hinterlands, but wait, he feels no need in the u.s.a!

The line on punchy palookas refers to a theme begun on an earlier post here. There is a great scene in Pulp Fiction where travolta calls willis palooka, willis says, who you calling palooka, and travolta says, that's right, punchy, I'm calling you, palooka.