Democrats drop “withdrawal” deadlines as administration mulls post-surge Iraq

[IndianaGreen]

Now that the Vichy Democrats have staged another surrender to Bush, we must analyze the reasons behind their treasonous collaboration with the American dictator Bush. Can we say that the Beltway Democrats covet Iraq's OIL as much as the GOP?

Democrats drop “withdrawal” deadlines as administration mulls post-surge Iraq

By Bill Van Auken
23 May 2007

With just days left until Congress goes into its Memorial Day recess, the Democratic leadership has reportedly dropped any proposal for a timeline for partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as part of a new war-funding bill.

The Democrats’ abandonment of this principal prop in their antiwar charade comes as the Bush administration is reported to be in discussions on what shape US policy will take in the aftermath of the present military “surge” that has poured tens of thousands of more American combat troops into Baghdad and Anbar province.

Behind the media reports of a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the Iraq war, what in reality appears to be emerging in Washington is a bipartisan consensus on a strategy that would continue the US occupation of the oil-rich country for many years to come.

<snip>

The principal benchmark that is invoked by politicians of both parties is the Iraqi parliament’s passage of a draft oil law. While this legislation is presented as an essential step in ensuring the fair distribution of the country’s oil wealth among different ethno-religious groups, it is, in fact, aimed principally at clearing the way for US-based energy conglomerates to exploit Iraqi oil reserves on extraordinarily profitable terms.

In an analysis of this premier “benchmark” last week, the Christian Science Monitor cited reports that “the draft law in fact says little about sharing oil revenues among Iraqi groups and a lot about setting up a framework for investment that may be disadvantageous to Iraqis over the long term.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/iraq-m23.shtml

[pnwmom]

1. This source isn't credible.

And the Greens have a vested interest in trying to tear apart the Democrats.

[yurbud]

2. unfortunately this source has been more accurate than most MSM the last couple of years

but you go ahead and listen to Katie Couric instead.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Do you enjoy being butt fucked by Bush, and without lubrication at that?

Because that's exactly what you are defending, the Democratic surrender to Bush. Somehow BOHICA is not a good rallying cry for Democrats.

Can you sleep at night thinking of how many more GIs will come home in coffins because the Democrats bent over to Bush, once again?

The American people voted for a Democratic Congress to change course in Iraq, not to have another Vichy surrender.

[pnwmom]

4. Do you enjoy knowing that the Greens and the Naderites

helped put Bush in office?

How can you sleep at night knowing that Gore would have been elected President 8 years ago if people like you weren't insisting that there was no difference between Gore and Bush?

[IndianaGreen]

5. Hello? "I'll watch your back" Kerry didn't challenge the Ohio results

as John Edwards urged him to do.

Get off the "Green" shit. I am Red, baby!

[pnwmom]

8. Bush started the war during his first term. If Gore had been elected in 2000,

we wouldn't be there now.

And if Gore had been elected , Kerry wouldn't even have run in 2004.

The beginning of the end was 2000, and the third party advocates -- Green, Red, Purple, whatever -- helped the Republicans win.

[IndianaGreen]

10. How many Democratic Senators joined the Black Caucus in challenging Florida electors?

The war in Iraq has bipartisan parentage! The upcoming war in Iran also has bipartisan fingerprints. How many Democratic Presidential hopefuls told AIPAC Conference this year that "all options were on the table" with Iran, echoing the same words used by Bush?

Take off those rose colored glasses!

BTW, Gore did win Florida in 2000 and Kerry won Ohio in 2004. The Beltway Democrats counseled us to "keep our powder dry" and not to make a fuzz about the stolen elections.

[depakid]

6. If the Dems (including Gore at the time) hadn't become far right enablers

and embraced their policies via "triangulation," the Greens wouldn't have gained ascendance in the first place!

That's just Poly Sci 101. Abandon your traditional principles (and your base) to chase some ephemeral center, and you create a vacuum that will be filled by a 3rd party every time.

I sure hope the Democratic "leadership" doesn't have to learn that lesson all over again in 2008....

[pnwmom]

9. Gore was never a far right enabler

except in the narcissistic fantasies of Nader and his ilk.

[depakid]

11. Of course he was!

Look at his positions on so called "free" trade and "reinventing government" just to name a few...

In most instances, he was fully on board with Clinton's Republican lite agenda.

[pnwmom]

15. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, you are correct about

Clinton's "Republican lite agenda."

That doesn't make either of them a "far right enabler."

[pnwmom]

7. self-delete.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Kucinich: While Washington Sleeps, Effort to Privatize Iraq’s Oil Continues

Kucinich: While Washington Sleeps, Effort to Privatize Iraq’s Oil Continues

Washington, May 18 - WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today’s Washington Post had a headline story “Bush Open to Iraq Benchmarks.” Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) issued the following statement:

“The benchmarks include a provision, which would lead to privatization of Iraq’s oil wealth. The President is open to such legislation because it is his idea. He and the Vice President have consistently misled the Congress on this matter, attempting variously to mask the privatization scheme as ‘equitable revenue sharing’ and as a means toward ‘reconciliation.’ This is a grand deception.

“While the media is paying close attention to the process of negotiations between the Administration and Congress, very few are looking at the most substantive issue in all the benchmarks: The attempt to force Iraq to privatize its oil, a provision open for all who can read to see in the text of the bill before the Iraqi Parliament.

“Congress has had little or no examination of the consequences of the benchmark which calls for Iraq to pass a Hydrocarbon Act. It isn’t asking questions and the President isn’t telling.

“Of course the President isn’t ruling out punishing the Iraqi government for not reaching benchmarks, because his Administration has deceitfully linked concepts of reconciliation and equitable oil revenue sharing to the passage of the Hydrocarbon Act which leads to privatization of Iraq’s oil wealth!

“Democrats have denied they are for anything which privatizes Iraq’s oil, which means they may be largely unaware of what the consequences in the bill are because of Mr. Bush’s deception.

“This entire matter about control of Iraq’s oil would be a farce, if it were not so tragic in its implication. First, Congress wanted benchmarks because the President wanted them. Now the President wants benchmarks because Congress wants them. Who is the father of this baby?!

“Meanwhile Congress prepares to continue to fund the war while the White House crafts a ‘bipartisan consensus’ to force Iraq to show “progress,” meaning Iraq gives up control of its oil. This war will never end if Iraqis believe we are trying to steal their oil, and, given the substance of the Hydrocarbon Act, how could they believe anything else?”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=65420

[some guy]

13. This source isn't credible

And the Greens have Kucinich has a vested interest in trying to tear apart the Democrats. :P

[IndianaGreen]

14. LMAO

Some Democrats have this compulsion to force themselves to believe in the lie that their leaders are really opposing Bush because to allow any doubt to creep in, it will collapse their moral universe like the house of cards it is. In that respect they are similar to Xtian fundies that deny evolution or global warming, and that convince themselves that Noah had a pair of raptors in his Ark.

[pnwmom]

16. And some Greens are here to pick off Democrats for their party.

Which only helps to elect Republicans.