Kucinich: OPPOSES Iraq Benchmarks

[pnwmom]

that require the Iraqi government to divide up oil revenues. Why -- because it is really a cover for handing the oil wealth to private industry.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070524a.html

CNSNews.com) - Anti-war Congressman Dennis Kucinich took to the House floor Wednesday to try to block legislation that would establish benchmarks for progress in the Iraq war, alleging that the measure hides the Bush administration's real motive - to "steal the oil resources of Iraq."

The supplemental military funding bill under consideration contains numerous benchmarks for progress in Iraq, including one for President Bush to report on whether the Iraqi government enacts "a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis."

But the Iraqi Parliament is already considering legislation backed by the Bush administration that would open up the majority of the country's oil fields to international investment and privatization, according to Kucinich.

In an hour-long address to a mostly empty House chamber, Kucinich, a long-shot contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, railed against the Iraqi legislation, calling it an "outrageous exploitation of a nation that is in shambles due to the American intervention."

SNIP

[Heath Hatcher]

1. DK is not alone

Alot of Democrats, even Republicans will be voting againist this bill today, he's not alone

[pnwmom]

2. And yet it seems as if most DUers will be furious if

the bill isn't passed WITH the benchmarks.

[IndyOp]

5. How do we force withdrawal other than by cutting off funds?

The benchmarks are meant to be reasons to cut off funds and withdraw troops -- if benchmark X isn't met by date Y then we withdraw troops.

I would certainly prefer no benchmarks, just OUT NOW - as Kucinich is pushing.

In the absence of OUT NOW - a funding bill with benchmarks could get us out in as little as a month -- if they fail to meet the first benchmark and it is in a month.

And how do we get OUT other than by stopping funding?

[Dhalgren]

9. The "benchmarks" in the bill are not mandatory. Bush can waive them...

[Dancing_Dave]

6. Whatever gave you that idea?

N/T.

[mike_c]

10. not all "benchmarks" are the same....

Let's be straightforward here. Benchmarks for Iraqi progress are a reasonable expectation-- but it depends on how we define "progress." Handling their own internal security? That's certainly progress and an appropriate benchmark. Bending over and spreading their legs for American oilmen? That's another matter.

For the record, I have NEVER supported an appropriation tied to benchmarks-- I want the funds for war crimes cut off, period.

[Dhalgren]

7. Is there any chance that this bill will not pass?

[Dancing_Dave]

3. More power to him!

He seems to be the only honest and courageous voice left in Congress. We should all call our Representatives and Senators and tell them that we'll never vote for them again if they vote for the disgraceful Iraq War funding bill that the Democratic "leadership" is willing to give to President Bush.

[dweller]

8. you can do that here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x958026


dp

[mike_c]

4. the cynicism with which Congress has aided and abetted...

...the administration's goals in the middle east-- even while some give lip service to opposing the war-- is rather stunning. At the end of the day, most congress men and women are tools of the same corporate interests that the Bush administration is working for. Checks and balances, anyone? They don't work when both the executive and legislative branches answer to the same oligarchy. The founders must be spinning in their graves.