$200B Gets You a Lot of "Cozy Cottages"

I’m sure you’ve probably seen this disgusting story about next year’s destination for The Internation Male Leather Circuit party embassy in Iraq, but one part caught my eye. I’m going to be angry like the Grey One today I think, and frame anything like this in the following: “…and Harry and Nancy think you should pay for this!” Isn’t war grand?

The residence of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will be 16,000 square feet. The deputy chief of mission in Iraq will have a “cozy cottage” measuring 9,500 square feet.

I have said it before: your Masters don’t live like you do. Theirs is another world, a quite secure bubble filled with Byzantine imaginations and debauched practices, opulent, decadent, utterly corrupt- and they didn’t really pay for any of it.

You did. I’m glad the Democratic Leadership is getting ready to give them some more of our our grandchildren’s money.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ups & Downs in Real Estate

Maybe we should consider our embassy a down payment on luxury reparations to the Iraqis. They’ll probably own it within a few years.

Not Only Their Money; Also Their Lives

“the Democratic Leadership is getting ready to give them some more of our our grandchildren’s money.”

Remember those permanent bases?
Say “Hello” to home to 75-100,000 USer troops for the next 20 years.
ALL the first tier ’candidates’ in BOTH parties are unified on the matter.
USers are gonna be killing ’rag-haids’ in Iraq for fucking DECADES. There is NO WAY around it.
And the Dems are no different from the Pukes, in this as in so much else…

the soviets called them "dacha", nyet?

a little google in the hands of an ignorant man is a dangerous weapon……..

googling “deputy chief of mission in iraq” i get
1. joe wilson, of course
2. david satterfield, and a link to this policy brief from the middle east institute entitled “exiting iraq”. included in that brief, if you’re too lazy to click, is this:

Ambassador David Satterfield, the panel’s final speaker, stressed the need for constant evaluation and then adjustment of policies to the complexities of Iraq, without a change in goals. Amb. Satterfield addressed the issue of Iraqi security by identifying its three primary threats: the Sunni insurgency, Al-Qaeda (both in Iraq and as a facet of the greater War on terror) and the expanding sectarian conflict. Of the three, he described sectarian violence as the greatest threat and urged US, Iraqi, regional and international actors to address that reality. Amb. Satterfield also called for a comprehensive and inclusive reconciliation of all parties with the state. He concluded that the US must act as a catalyst to mobilize support and must draw on both internal and external actors to help move Iraq forward.

In the question and answer section of the panel, Amb. Satterfield responded to requests for a clearer definition of the nature of the conflict. He described the conflict as an insurgency operating “from the bottom up.” In their closing comments, panelists addressed the US government’s lack of leverage in the region. Several panelists suggested reopening talks with neighboring countries to address the destabilization in Iraq as well as larger regional issues and all concurred that increased dialogue was essential to moving forward in Iraq.