and that is all you have noticed ?
you should read more attentively! "for me, not your best piece..." -- what a charming understatement (although, if you read his whole oeuvre, hell, it might just be the best... it's truly hard to categorize there.)
(...) When the costs of America's imperial adventure in the Mid-East become obvious, both in terms of money (vis a vis 18 billion siphoned directly from the public coffer into the pockets of Halliburton, et al) and the particular and tragic young lives wasted in this colonial war, we will do the same thing the British did in America in 1781. We will cut our losses and run.(...)
Why "siphoned"? What's wrong with paying a company for its services ? "Cut losses and run"? Is it really what's going on? I don't think so.
(...) Bushco thinks it has a franchise on democracy. The trouble is that their version of democracy is really corporate oligarchy. (...)
So what? Where exactly is the trouble? Compared to what? What would be preferable -- something along the lines of the Baathist regimes? How do you want to improve on that? You can't simply declare something an "oligarchy" and be done with it. Give it a frame of reference, propose something constructive. This "oligarchy" may be the best thing since the sliced bread, realistically speaking. At the same time, you can find a disparaging epithet to absolutely any political system -- in existence or only potential. What kind of democracy would the author prefer? I dont' say there can't be any, maybe there can: what is it? Let us hear something positive here. What's the deal with "half a BILLION"? Why not "HALF a billion?" Or "half of a thousandth of a TRILLION" -- now that's even more impressive, huh.
(...) This is witnessed by the fact that in the upcoming presidential election the two major candidates will spend in excess of half a BILLION dollars to secure a job that pays only 400,000 a year. Is there something rotten in Denmark? (...)
Is that an asinine comment of what? Obviously the salary here got nothing to do with nothing; candidates do not spend their own funds here, and those who actually pay, spend this big money on the campaign not so their candidate may have this 400K/year salary; obviously they think that what's really at stake here is worth this kind of money.
How come you've overlooked all this obvious silliness and limited your critique to some insignificant details? It looks like you're being disingenuous here a bit.