I'm glad it was helpful
though what I've said is so obvious, it makes one wonder how come you needed this kind of critique to begin with.
As far as $45 for a case of coke -- first, there's nothing about coke in your article, instead you make a blanket statement implying that a huge amount of taxpayer money was basically stolen. Second, getting back to the unmentioned-in-the-article coke: where are the details? Was it one box? Three? A hundred? Is it even true? Was it all that Halliburton did there? Were these "siphoned" $18 bil all spent on overpriced coke, or was the coke just a small thing, that the media fastened to coz it suits their goals? The way the article is written implies that either it was all coke, or even if it wasn't, then still the money was all similarly stole/wasted -- which is not the case, most likely. Is this kind of suggestive, malicious innuendo accidental? (Ditto for this MSNBC article I posted here that mnaz begged to let him in on -- like he didn't understand, heh-heh.)
What you say now about oligarchy is well and proper, but how does it fit into the context of your Iraq article? If you were to criticize the US political system in the context of the US internal politics, that'd be OK. But in an article on Iraq? Surely, however bad the US system is, it's better than the Saddam equivalent. And it's not even clear if that comparison is what you implied -- on the surface of it, it's just irrelevant carping; you might as well have mentioned the US annual suicide rate, or that quite a few buildings in the Augusta GA downtown are not freshly painted every year: you just don't know what to make of it as related to Iraq (though it may very well be true in its own right.)