It funny question just occurred to me out of the blue: What the hell is going on with Jim Baker and the Iraqi debt negotiations? Baker was appointed by Bush back in December 2003 to try to work out some sort of agreement with Iraq’s creditors. Iraq has a massive debt and few friends, so the job was an extremely delicate one. Because Baker is allied with the Kissinger/Realist/Bush I Republicans, the appointment was interpreted at the time as a setback for the neo-cons. All eyes were momentarily riveted on Baker.
But I don’t think I’ve heard a bloody thing about the effort since, and it’s not as if I don’t spend several hours a day reading about the subject. What gives? Is it that Iraq needs sovereignty before negotiations can begin in earnest? (But then what use is Baker?) Or is it that Baker is freezing out the press? (Baker knows better than that.) Is it that the subject is thought so boring that no one is covering it? Or have I just missed all the front page stories on Baker’s exciting debt-negotiating adventures? I’ve got a comments section. You know what to do.