Just to help everyone out, I'm going to clarify some purportedly "confusing" recent news events. If you're like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times (I really am unsure what I'd do without personification), "the strange hostility toward an American ally [Ahmed Chalabi] in Iraq" is confounding, conflating and confusing. Though, to be fair, The New York Times is confused in the sense that they're glad "...to see that Washington is distancing itself..." from Chalabi but are sad to see him find "a way to portray himself as a martyred Iraqi patriot." They don't understand that it's really just confabulating. Step one, distance self from Chalabi, allowing him to avoid unseemly ties to Great Satan. Step two, turn over power to the Iraqi National Congress [INC](whome the U.S. has publicly refused to fund as of late. "Oh my, they are enemies of the Satan, too!") at the end of June, the INC demands!! that the U.S. leave Iraq (Powell has stated we would leave if asked) and off we go. The hard part, for me, is figuring step three. Why did the U.S. conduct this war in the first place? I presume that the "WMD thing" (hahaha, I love how significant historical events can be reduced to mere kerfuffles) was more a rationalization than anything. There's something we want from Iraq. Maybe it's just Democracy or a lifetime supply of midnight-black showers of Iraqi crude. I don't know how the U.S. makes what it wants happen if it pulls troops out. Maybe Chalabi's newfound badboy image will help him get elected, and then he will secretly give us whatever it is that we are expecting from our investment in Iraq.

Now, I'm not saying any of this will happen. That's just the plan. You know all about 'plans' and 'assuming' and 'such'. You can rearrange the letters of the words to say, "I slam such snug pans" and that's absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense very rarely leads to much good.