"Luke writes a Pulitzer article"of course, much of the credit goes to Rich and the editing superstars at Raw. I'd name them individually - but I'm not sure what the protocol is. The names are here.
* SteveA makes a lot of good points in this comment, as usual, - and/but he includes this:
"So, if the neocon republicans are ousted then we could easily get the neocon democrats. Both seemingly are into supporting the strategy in the middle east, if not the particular wars in Iraq, or the tactics about the way they are fought. Both seem to want to put pressure on Iran if not attack them.a lot of smart people make similar statements, and i know of virutally nobody who agrees with me on this one - but i haven't ranted about it for ages, so i'll use this opportunity to tee off again... the problem that i have with this analysis is that it assumes, apparently, that the people making the decisions appear to give a damn about what happens to the US in the medium-term - yet i haven't seen the slightest evidence that this is the case. the argument appears to hinge on the apparent fact that oil is the key to get keep the economy (and western 'civilization') buzzing along - therefore, best we go and steal all of the ME's oil to keep it cheap for the next generation. That argument seems to me to have a bunch of fundamental flaws - for example: who is making money, today, outta this? The idea that 'war today is good so that prices are generally cheaper in America in 30 years time' seems ridiculous to me. Bill Maher was saying just yesterday that fully 25% of Americans (presumably the BushBase) expect Jeebus to come and vacuum them up to heaven THIS YEAR. There's not much incentive for medium-term planning...
I figure both are wanting to do something about some coming oil shortage by going in and taking what they want."