Oily War Coverage

As the fifth anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq passes, and the death toll of U.S. soldiers passes 4,000, the media dares to question its own slack coverage, or lack of.

This morning, Yahoo's news headline included the above graphic: 'Was the War About Oil?'

Within an hour it had disappeared. I had to dig to find the Washington Post article, buried under other news, which states:

Five years after the United States invaded Iraq, plenty of people believe that the war was waged chiefly to secure U.S. petroleum supplies and to make Iraq safe -- and lucrative -- for the U.S. oil industry.

The links to the website BloodForOil.org were yanked.

Instead, Iraq is covered as a campaign promo for near-senile John McCain, and his junket to Iraq to pose with soldiers (he'll then no doubt leave with hundreds killed, like last time).

Iraqis still lack basic food, water, and electricity, yet rightwing war-lovers proudly proclaim that "the surge is working."

Even a Pentagon study proved there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, yet McCain is lauded as a war hero surveying his future domain.

This all could cost over three trillion dollars, says one nobel laureate.

For a few hours, a mainstream website asked what any sane person has known for more than five years; yes, idiots, Iraq is about oil.

McCain wants to stay there for "100 years or a 1,000 years, whatever it takes." Clinton takes $10 million from Saudis, who want Iraq to stay a mess so they can continue jacking up oil prices. Obama? Whatever his plan is, it's a pipe dream.