Many More Sons Will Die While the Democrats Do Nothing to Stop the War

[CountessMZaleska]

First, the Democrats have no coherent position on the war. In fact, most of them voted for it. Second, given that the president is the commander-in-chief and conducts foreign policy, there is a limit to what the Democrats can constitutionally do about it, beyond refusing to fund it. This would represent great political risk, making Democrats vulnerable to the Republican charge that they are putting American soldiers at risk for partisan reasons. Such a stance would demand both principle and determination - neither of which has proven to be their strong suit.

In an attempt to intervene between the supine and the stubborn, the Iraq Study Group last month offered Bush a stern rebuke - but also a way out. This week it will receive his response as he plans to rebuff popular opinion, political opposition and establishment advice and call for a "surge" of between 20,000 and 40,000 troops in Iraq to "stabilise" the situation. The word surge, like every other premise for this war, is misleading. It suggests a brief increase when, in fact, his advisers have told him the extra troops would have to be there for at least 18 months.

more at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0108-22.htm

[stillcool]

1. I think not........

It's still about oil in Iraq
A centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's report is its advocacy for securing foreign companies' long-term access to Iraqi oil fields.
By Antonia Juhasz, ANTONIA JUHASZ is a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time."
December 8, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe...
WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.
Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields,Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."
.............................................................................
Further, the Iraq Study Group would commit U.S. troops to Iraq for several more years to, among other duties, provide security for Iraq's oil infrastructure. Finally, the report unequivocally declares that the 79 total recommendations "are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation."
All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.

"Can't Stay the Course, Can't End the War, But We'll Call It 'Bipartisan'..."
By Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver *
Foreign Policy In Focus
December 7, 2006
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3767
Despite the breathless hype, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group (ISG) report did not include any dramatic new ideas for ending the war in Iraq. In fact, it did not include a call to end the war at all. Rather, the report's recommendations focus on transforming the U.S. occupation of Iraq into a long-term, sustainable, off-the-front-page occupation with a lower rate of U.S. casualties. Despite its title, it does not provide "A New Approach: A Way Forward."
--------------------------------------------
While the ISG is eager to have Iraqis take up security issues by themselves, they are not so quick to have Iraqis take charge of their economy or more importantly, the development of their massive oil reserves. The ISG team advocates for the sharing of oil revenues throughout the country, a departure from the current Iraqi constitution that states revenue from new oil fields goes to local provinces. If carried out, this reform would help lessen the pressure for division within the country.

Following this sensible proposal is one much more radical--complete privatization of the oil industry, combined with foreign investment, and technical assistance by the U.S. government. This directly contradicts the ISG's earlier recommendation that, "The President should restate that the U.S. does not seek to control Iraq's oil" and guarantees that the U.S. and multinational corporations will be vying for control and power in Iraq for decades. Clearly this section of the report was heavily influenced by commission members James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger, whom have sought access to Iraqi's oil for most of their political careers, as well as by the longstanding consensus of U.S. corporate and government opinion about the importance and claimed legitimacy of maintaining U.S. control of Iraqi oil.

[Demit]

2. This essay was published on the FIRST DAY of the new Congressional session

—meaning it was written before the Democrats had taken power, yet the headline rebukes the Democrats for doing nothing to stop the war, and the subhead says that they have failed. WTF!! The writer himself says, later in the piece, that Democrats will "probably" do nothing. What a ridiculous piece of writing, and in the Guardian, too.

[CountessMZaleska]

16. can you point out

one single SERIOUS action the Dems have taken to seriously END THE WAR, except writing a letter to Bush that he wiped his ass with?

The writer is right on the money.

[Demit]

17. On the SECOND day of the session, Ted Kennedy introduced a bill that

says "no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation unless and until Congress approves the president's plan." The senator is calling for Congress to exert its constitutional authority and demand a vote before any escalation in Iraq.

This is the THIRD day of their actually being in power. I'm saying the writer should at least wait to see what the Democrats do before accusing them of inaction. This writer, unless he has a crystal ball, is full of shit.

[ClassWarrior]

18. And many of the new chairs of committees with oversight...

...have purposely been waiting till tonight's dog and pony show is over before they begin investigations.

But I don't think the OP is interested in facts.

NGU.

[babylonsister]

3. Can't say I agree with this, but welcome to DU. nt

[erpowers]

4. Wrong Information

You, the person who wrote that article, or both you and the person who wrote this have the wrong information. First, the Democrats do have a "coherent position on the war". The Democratic position on the war is to start reducing the number of troops in Iraq as soon as possible. It seems that some in the media seem to feel that saying you want to remove troops as soon as possible is not a plan. Second, most of the Democrats voted against the war in Iraq. In the House Democrats overhelmingly voted against the Iraq War or giving Bush the ability to send troops to Iraq. For some reason many in the media really like saying that the majority of the Democrats voted for the war. Third, the Democrats have a number of options other than just cutting funding for the troops. At the blog Think Progress there was a list of the times when Congress took steps reduce the number of troops in a war zone/conflict zone.

[papau]

5. All true - the poster has wrong information it seems. But "quick action" isn't possible

when all you have is the Congress.

And the Reagan treason - ignoring the law that was the Boland Amendment that would have stopped the killing of nuns and children in our name in the "Contra" scandal - shows that our media will support law breaking - making Congressional control via the budget near impossible .

[Sparkly]

8. Thank you! And fourth...

Fourth, nothing anybody does will "end the war" -- only the US involvement in it.

Fifth, the Democrats are not "doing nothing." They are holding Chimpy's feet to the fire, withholding funding until or unless he convinces them that additional troops will help the situation (which I highly doubt is going to happen).

[CountessMZaleska]

10. no

it seems to me that the Democrats do NOT have a coherent position on the war.

They want to have it both ways, they want to sound against it to their base, but won't cut funding to the war, allowing Bush to star the course.

In the meantime, more Iraqis and Americans die.

[stillcool]

13. it seems to me....

you've got a beef with the democratic party, and not with any action or inaction they've taken past, present, or future. Bush already stars on this course...it's his war...where've you been?

[CountessMZaleska]

14. cut the double talk

and answer my question: why won't Democrats CUT THE FUNDING FOR THE WAR?

[stillcool]

19. How do you know

... whether any funding will be cut? You obviously are not aware of the various attempts made by democratic representatives...mine included...to try and stop the Bush/Republican orgy that's been going on since 2000. Now...that all the horses have left the barn you want to pitch a bitch? You can sell your arrogant, obnoxious shtick elsewhere...I'm not buying...and I don't play in the gutter.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Many more will die while BUSH continues his MADNESS

[CountessMZaleska]

11. why on Earth do you think

people put Democrats in charge of Congress?

so they would do their f*cking job and STOP the madness!

but to do that, they'd need a spine, do they have one? No, in 6 years they allowed for everything Bush wished, not a single, hear?, not a SINGLE filibuster.

Things won't change now.

[opihimoimoi]

12. It took time for the rePigs to gather strength ...puting Bush into office

Don't be blaming the Dems for not acting fast enough...they are slowly learning how to impose Peace/Reason/Sanity/Common Sense into the National Scene...all for the Common Good....

The Pendelum is swinging back to the Good Side of things....it takes TIME but ya can bet your boots the Dems will do the job right.

BTW, where were the Pubs Spines for 6 years...they being rubber stamps for the Chimp....where were they when Reason and Sanity came into the scene? It is the GOP who are spineless...not the Dems...

[CountessMZaleska]

15. LOL

it takes TIME my foot. If Dems were serious about ending the war, THEY WOULD CUT THE FUNDING NOW. Period.

and Democrats rubber-stamped everything Bush has done so far, the war, his right-wing Supreme mobsters, etc. Where's the single FILIBUSTER?

Don't make me laugh.

[ClassWarrior]

20. Time?? What's time??! I want INSTANT gratification, you hear??!...

INSTANT!!! Do what I want, WHEN I want it, or I'm gonna hold my breath!!!

Don't make me LAUGHHH!!!

:grr:

{This performance presented by the DUDQ... ~bowing profusely~}

NGU.

[kath]

7. More daughters will die, too...

[LynneSin]

9. It's not just our sons dying there - our daughters are dying too, like this one

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701090357

Shes' #3014 and the 66th woman to die over in Iraq.

Perhaps it's best to say 'our children'

[ellisonz]

21. Bullshit.

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

22. Absolutely. Then, what do we do when MOST citizens are too

apathetic to vote, because they see neither party as actually listening to them, and doing the will of the people?

Dems need to actually stand for something.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Most voted for it? Iirc, nope. I can go prove it if you like

Second, they've been in power all of three days. I'd say your pronouncement is a tad premature.