Democrats gave Bush the oil

Although a timeline was not included, the Iraq war spending bill that passed Congress last week did contain benchmarks.  One of those benchmarks was to privatize Iraq's oil for U.S. companies.  Ann Wright explains the hidden provision:

The privatizationlaw ..would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Companyfor only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) ofknown oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabsby the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would goto United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqigovernment.)

Noother nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts tointernational oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billiondollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requiresIraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, toprivatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to30-year) contracts. 

Ironically, some of the very same Democrats who continuously accused the President of going to war for oil still voted for this bill.

Comments

[KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA]

What a bunch of traitors the Democracts in Congress turned out to be.

They didn't even have the decency to hide Karl Rove, who showed up in Congress to buy off the Democrats on the night of the Senate's traitorous vote.

I used to be Independent until the Republicans forced me to become Democratic. Now that the Democrats have bought the war, they forced me to become Independent again.

As far as I am concerned, both parties can jump off a cliff. Oops! After marching lockstep behind their Lemming in Chief, they already did!

[George]

Kevin, I definitely hear you. The job of Republicans is basically to make Democrats look good. But they aren't for the most part. Independent is the only way to go. It's even comical that people think they belong to a certain party sometimes. If you want to be told what to think, be my guest, join a party.

I have a feeling though that the Dems in Congress are basically selling their souls to let this war continue, thereby letting the Republican Party totally implode. I think the Dems dont give a crap about anything but taking back the WH and having this war continue only helps that cause so long as their top candidates appear to be opposed to letting the war continue.

[Justin Vicory]

I don't know which reaction is stronger here as I reflect upon this situation. It's somewhere between shame and outrage. Yet when one provides this possibility as one of the key reasons for Bush and Cheney to "liberate" Iraq all else fits together.

So then where the hell are the Dems. beside Kuccinich and McDermott on this. This is shameful. This is greedy. This is fundamentally an incredible breach of democratic principles. In many parts of Iraq, citizens are spending days in line for gas that has been heavily inflated, have at best 3 hours of electricity a day, and so far over 2 million have fled to bordering countries due to increased sectarian violence.

What has the U.S.State Department done?? So far, we're considering whether or not providing 7000 Iraqis refugee status in our own country as our borders remain so porous millions of illegal aliens find shelter here.

[Vicki]

The Democrats are the hope of this country. Your comments against the Democrats is sad because the republicans are rubberstamping Bush and being a road block to everything they have attempted to do. Democrats are up against the whitehouse and his rubberstampers. They do not have freedom to do the will of the people. All they can do is compromise and get the minimum wage rate raised. I know they are not saints, but compared to the republicans - they are. Be an independent if you want,but be a republican at the peril of this nation.

[George]

Vicki,
I'm tired of hearing they look good compared to complete crap. They absolutely have the power now because they control both houses. They could have ended this war by not giving the President funding for war. They could have shut down the money train completely and they didn't

So on this Memorial Day, they act like they did the troops a favor by giving them funding. As if the alternative was to leave them in Iraq to fend for themselves. But on this Memorial Day they screwed the troops even more so that Bush's War could remain Bush's War. They couldn't even compromise for a fucking TIMETABLE! NO BENCHMARKS? What is that about?

Thanks for nothing, Democrats.

[granny]

Ditto, George!

[The Mexican]

Much frustration in this post. I'd say let not the independents and liberals (and conservatives) fight amongst ourselves on this issue. This is a time when more needs to be done to straighten up the only hope we have--the Dems in power. We must stand much more resolute, and not allow the slander to disenfranchise us and make us more disillusioned than what the spin masters perceive our collective to be. More now than ever, after the Dems have been pulled across the mud in this tug-of-war, do we need to grasp that last bit of rope and pull harder than the other side. May sound corny, but I've always figured that if it's corny and truthful, the truth should matter more than the corniness of phrase and rhetoric.

[Chabuka]

A conservative man that called into a progressive talk show today..said that all young liberal, progressive men, only wanted to read poetry and hold their boyfriends hands, guess if you do not want to be killed or do not want to kill, then you are a "progressive liberal fairy" a "homo"...a pussy...nice man....do you suppose he has ever seen any combat...? where do they come from...?

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Amen to that, The Mexican!! If this same scenario plays out in September and the Democrats bow to the President's wishes on the next funding bill, then I think all of the progressive blogs out there should ask for both Reid and Pelosi to step down. BUT, for the time being, we've got to keep the pressure on Bush. Yeah, there is every reason to give the Democrats a good kick in the back-side every now and then -- and I'm glad we're doing it now as opposed to in October of 2008. But this entire summer is when all of us will need to step up and call this Administration and the Republican Party on all of their corrupt ways -- from Gonzales; to Cheney's fantasies about attacking Iran; to their claim about al Qaeda and Iraq; to the lack of emergency response resources that are in place right before the upcoming hurricane season.

This is the real deal. I monitor who visits this site. I know for a fact that House and Senate staffers visit all the time (by noticing that their IP address come from, for example, the Hart Senate Office.). All of what we write here gets heard. Blogs are to Democrats as what talk radio is to Republicans. Republicans get nervous when they are criticized by Rush Limbaugh. Democrats also get queasy to hear Kos and other bloggers go at them. This does make a difference. So keep the pressure on!!

[George]

Todd,
With all due respect, why do we always have to wait another few months? It's always the next bill, the next vote, the next chance. That's what May was. Do you think Iraq will improve this summer? I don't - so why wait? Why do we have to sell at rock bottom?

[BushSacker]

The bush gameplan is already written on the wall. In September, coopt the thrice suckered Dems by declaring "Significant Progress" (no matter the reality) and then announcing the start of slow token withdrawal of troops to boost the repub candidates in November... The Dems will be sooo befuddled by this surprising plan of attack they won't know what to do (as usual) exceptin surrender (again, as usual)

[George]

BushSacker is right. I'm thinking that they are casually increasing troop count now and sometime next year they will make a public event out of a withdrawal that basically takes the troop count down to what it was before their covert increase.

[granny]

I'm sticking with George!

Bushsacker is right. There is a plan, whether it's identicle to his scenario or not...

And there's plenty of time for another "terrorist event", too.

And Todd is right. Right as rain!: "This IS the real deal." It's happening right now.

We need to stay alert, keep informed and in touch, and keep the message clear and unequivocal: that there is a strong and operating resistance -

To quote Edna St. Vincent Millay:
"I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned"

[mark mywords]

yeehah WE GOT THE OIL!!!

what did you all THINK was going to happen?

sadly i do not oppose what the dems did because i do understand a lot of the workings of gov't and they DO NOT REALLY HAVE THE MAJORITY. without veto power AND with a "certain number" of elected "DEMS" actually leaning right (think Lieberman) who would JUMP SHIP if push comes to shove..... their majority is at best a balancing act.

in 2008 (prayfully) if the DEMS really do take the majority (win seats as well as the whitehouse), DEM will become the center-line in the country AND the progressives and liberals will have a bigger say.

MONEY DOES TALK. and sometimes IT SHOULD. when we actually get to the tipping point will be when the "average" liberal has tossed $1000 into the pot--- more importantly, when i recently attended a meeting of the local Dem Party... a lot of empty seats. So many of the blogger-crybabies (especially those who say they don't have $) won't give even an hour (which they DO have) to fight for their beliefs.

god bless america, hopefully they will awaken

[Val Zudell]

Well Democrats, there are consequences for your "sell out" to Bush. You've just kicked all of us in the teeth including the Iraqi's when you gave away their oil to Bush's buddies. Did you think we wouldn't notice? My entire family is now looking at Independent candidates to replace those who have betrayed us.

[Calvin Edwards]

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
When are you whiners gonna wake up and realize Bush, Dems, and Reps don't represent the American people. They are working together for the CORPORATE takeover of America and the rest of the world. They keep telling us they don't have the votes. They always have the votes for the Corporations. Sen Feinstein voted to continue this war. What a Surprise?!? Anyone know what her husband does for a living? He makes a fortune off contracts for this war which she votes to give him. Check out their $16 million dollar new home which this war paid for.
Anyone notice that the same night the Dems voted for this war, they had a huge party that night while our soldiers were getting their butts shot off?
Someone said the Dems read these blogs - well read this. I'm leaving your party. You Dems are murderers!!!

[The Mexican]

Clearly, if the staffers and others visit, they must see the turmoil their superiors' decisions cause their constituents. Again, I stress the irrationality that comes from the descent into skeptical cynicism be laid off, so the group can get its feet and its footing together again. It's expected for the Dems to stumble around after winning a huge victory last election; after being off-balance for so long, it's not immediate our balance is brought back, especially within the first five or six months after a decade of forced minority.

Now, there are great consequences for the time spent in treading the path of dalliance as lives of our brave forces fight the good fight, but this is the hand they've, unfortunately, dealt for the time being. I'd rather be hopeful of greater progress than believe all is for naught.

And to those whom they would challenge my own belief: Let me reaffirm, I'm a Democratic Socialist, I've never believed the Dems had all the right answers. I'm way further left than this site, part of the fringe-left the right collective mentions. But, since this is a two-party system and out of the hope for the future of the presidential nominees to each party, there's only one Repub, Ron Paul, and there are several Dems on the right path towards normalcy, not this dystopia in which we seemingly reside. This is our only hope until some great revolution, which I doubt is coming anytime soon. So be pissed at the Dems for being craven, but lend them your strength renewed after the vitriol to give them power. Beating ourselves up, them up, and others up to death won't solve the problems we face, only beget time wasted. And that's what the administration and upper class would have us do while they buy time by having us bicker amongst ourselves incessantly.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

George and Bushsacker, I completely agree with all of your points. Democrats got a kick in the backside over the weekend. We got the two front-runners, Obama and Clinton, to vote the way we wanted them to vote. So there is hope on the horizon. And when you all threaten to leave the party, people in Congress are listening to that. They want to be reelected -- and all of us decide that. We have the power. I really wish every lawmaker could barnstorm across his/her home district/state a few days each week -- the way Clinton and Obama do in Iowa and New Hampshire. It would get them in touch with real people for a change. Maybe it partly explains why Dodd, Obama, Kucinich and Clinton are so against any bill without a timetable. They are outside the Beltway bubble all the time.

Politicians in Washington are so out of touch, and we are calling them on it. They are getting one giant dose of reality. I see nothing wrong with that.

All I was saying was that we shouldn't turn our back on the GOP and let them roam freely without our watchful eye on them.

[Jason]

I'm with The Mexican out here on the fringe-left.

Guys like Sanders, Kucinich and Paul notwithstanding, what I see is just two approaches to the same political ideology. To believe otherwise is just naive. Dems/Repugs/whatever... they all need gas for their limos. Iraq has an obscene amount of oil in reserves and a whacky dictator controlling it all. Not too hard to comprehend that we broke in to nab it, everyone complicit. America-at-large would not stand for a "liberal" politician, especially the Clenis, to do anything remotely warlike, so the 2000 election had to go to the Repugs. This thing was in the works since Poppy Bush left office. Right-wing radio blaring throughout the 1990s, religion married to nationalism, conditioning the sheeple... Oops, a Dem was elected President again in 1996; proceed with Operation FOX News Channel!

There are a very few major players with the knowledge of how much oil is left, and I'm thinking it's not much. Since there is no plan B for energy supplies, what we have here is just the first of the Resource Wars. Bickering about which way one of the wings votes, along with protesting and demanding that they "bring our troops home", is an irrelevant exercise. American forces will never leave Iraq. And, in case you missed it: American forces will never leave Iraq.

The game is on now. The only way all this stuff, all this corruption, lies, legal murder, rationalizations, usurped liberties... all this *had* to happen. Civilized people just don't invade other countries and steal stuff anymore. No more Huns, Vikings or Mongols. There has to be a justified public reason- Terrorism! In the future, the atrocities to be committed in the name of a war against that one word will be even more shocking. What I'm curious about is how far we'll go in using that excuse. After 9/11, does anyone remember the commercials accused potheads and SUV owners of supporting terrorism? That's when I knew this whole thing was going to be ugly (and stay ugly for a long time). Interestingly, it will never be used as justification for war against white people. That's just my own personal prediction.

So we're wondering what the heck Democrats are doing, after we voted them in to end the occupation. They aren't going to end it. The next Congress isn't going to end it. The Repuglican President "elected" in 2008 sure isn't going to end it. It'll end when the last drop of Iraqi oil is cost-effectively sucked from the sand.

That's the reality. And we've spent the last 30 years ensuring that the rest of the world is dependent on the US as a market for their crap and an investment for their bankers. That way, we don't need a coalition of the willing for anything, because they've already been bought and paid for. And, of course, all the right people everywhere are making money. And, thanks again to the last 30 years (okay, 50 years) of propaganda, the last thing they have to worry about is a major populist movement cutting the funding for any of it.

It's a system now.

[Lonna Gooden VanHorn]

Part of the problem with politics, especially in this LimbaughHannity age is that each side demonizes virtually all members of the other side about everything. Good and evil, Black and white.

I get really tired of hearing about the spineless Democrats. A lot of Democrats voted against the war funding bill, but because it did not pass, ALL Democrats have been branded as spineless. The really spineless ones are the Republicans who still support the policies of this worst of all presidents and vote accordingly.

The usual heros who always vote for the people voted against funding. Kucinich, Waters, McDermott, etc. AND, Republican Ron Paul and one other Republican voted against it as well. I suspect Hillary voted against it more because she wanted to gain points for "political courage" than because she really did not want to vote for it. She knew that even if she didn't vote for it, it would pass anyway.

Some who voted for the bill are good people,but they knew Bush would veto the bill, they would not be able to override it, and so more time would be wasted. It shocked me to see that Tom Harkin voted for the bill. He is usually one of the more "liberal" (and in my opinion courageous) Senators. I would like to know HIS reasoning and may try to find how he justified HIS vote.

In my opinion, Congress should have voted against the bill anyway, and vocally laid the onus of "not supporting the troops" on the president for his veto, but I can understand why they didn't.

Blanket condemnation is as wrong as blanket cheerleading.

I heard a very good Democrat explain why she would not back impeachment. Not because she did not want the b a ds impeached, but because she said it would suck all the energy out of Congress and they would get nothing else done. I still believe they should be impeached and as the evidence mounts against them and the public becomes aware of it...

I almost always vote for Democrats, but I would have voted for Republican Jim Leach of Iowa last year against a good Democratic challenger who won because Leach took a principled stand against the president, the war, and many other of his policies. His constituents did not reward him for his principles, but voted him out after somethig like 30 years. Now THAT is a hero!! Few people of either party are principled enough to take a stand that risks their very good job!!When they do, they should be rewarded!! And I would vote for Ron Paul even though we are poles apart on many issues because I know he is a man of principle. I also know most of the policies he supports that I do not support have little possibility of ever coming into being anyway. That is another thing we let pundits do to us. Even IF someone is branded as being "too liberal." IF they are, you can bet Congress would not let them get away with their most libreral stands anyway. I thought the same would be true of "too conservative" and it would be if more Republicans were principled. But we had an unintelligent, rubberstamp Republican Congress except for Ron Paul, Jim Leach, and, perhaps a few others I know little about. ALL Congress people should be principled, but sadly the American public is too uninformed to vote for the best person, only the person who can afford the most sound bites.

[Lonna Gooden VanHorn]

Jason, I agree with you in large part. This is a government "of, by and for" corporations. I know the Pentagon has plans drawn up for wars with a lot of countries in case "we" decide to go to war with them. Oil wars and later water wars. You can bet Venezuela is one of those countries. Chavez would already be gone if we weren't so tied up in other placs. Justification is manufactured for military action against any nation whose leader gets "uppity" when it comes to letting our companies exploit his people and his country's resources. When they do, a "reason" to go to war with them is found. And the main stream media is the propaganda arm that lets them get away with their "justifications" when the time comes. The justifications will almost always include fear mongering. Or else our being noble and "helping" the country whose resource we want to steal. I think South America's attitude toward the U.S. right now is a pretty good testament to what they think of our "help" and how much it has really benefitted the people!

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." Or if you can't read that, I wrote an article called "Smarter than We Are" which summarizes it, and which you can find at OPEDNEWS.

"American interests" is a pretty broad term, and NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. After all, maintaining control of the American colonies would certainly have been "British interests."

Iraq is blieved to have 300 billion barrels of oil under its sands, and rather than mandate greater fuel efficiency OR build more hybrid cars, which would be the smart thing to do, the oil companies and the auto manufacturers instead want to sell their bigger cars that use more gas. Carter mandated fuel efficiency standards, and he put solar panels on the White House. Some of the first things Reagan did when he came into office was take down the solar panels AND do away with mandated fuel efficiency standards.

If you ever get a chance, watch the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car." AND read Ann Wright's essay which can be found in "truthout" among other sites. We will never leave Iraq because our oil companies will have 20 or 30 year leases on more than 80% of their oil fields and ALL of the ones that will be discovered from now on. The troops will remain there to "protect American interests" as long as those leases exist. There will, eventually, be fewer of them. I just wonder what kind of a mercenary force we will leave there. Scary thought.

[JM]

The Democrats know as well as Bush and the Republican Party do: America wants the oil, period. And the Democrats will go through whatever contortions and denials and obfuscations they deem necessary to keep it coming, and to keep the petrodollar alive. It's really that stark.

I think the Dems have this pie-in-the-sky theory that once they have condemned Bush for the invasion, they can keep us around in Iraq only just long enough for American firms to put a physical presence in the oil fields and become "vulnerable."

Then it becomes a matter of protecting said fields and firms (and American Lives!) as a matter of security for the Whole World.

"Of course America isn't TAKING the oil--why, the idea! We're PROTECTING it for all of us! You don't want it to fall to al-Qaeda or Iran, do you? We're doing the world a favor, and who is better positioned and equipped to protect The World's Most Precious Resource From Terrorists?"

The Democrats could certainly sign on to that, and they're just waiting for the right moment, when they can promulgate a decent oilthirstiness with paxmongering and safedaddyness.

[Steve]

"Outrage"

"Not enough votes".

"Betrayed"

"Spineless"

etc.

If you faux progressives can't read this writing on the wall, you deserve the sucker-punch coming your way in September.

Neither party represents you.

It is as bad as all those wild-eyed "conspiracy theorists" have been saying all along...both parties are owned lock, stock and barrel by the global military-industrial-political complex Eisenhower warned us of. And 911 is the key.
The sooner you fake liberals realize you've been had, the sooner the rest of the world can start healing.

When the criminals take the government, it's time for the people to take the streets.

Wake the fahk up already.

[bret]

Ron Paul's message is the answer to all the problems. The democratic party's answers are basically the same as the republican party's ... More Government, "better" government, etc. This position is fundamentally at odds with every lesson of history. Keep spreading the message - peace is possible, and not only that it is preferable, in every respect (war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, etc ad nauseum).

[granny]

Wow. Dems give Bush oil sure has hit a nerve!

So many comments … lots to think about:
Condemnation and demonization, pro and con…black and white …

and now: “we”, as opposed to … (who is that, now…the one and only “real” progressive here?) are “faux progressives”. I couldn’t quite tell if we were supposed to just shut up and take it on the chin, or take to the streets…. But one way or the other, we, apparently, hold the key to the rest of the world’s healing. That’s a lot of power, that is! And I’d like to just say: I’m for it!

Before shutting up, however, I want to remark on commentary here, regarding “reasons” 1) not to oppose the funding bill, and 2) not to impeach.

I’m kind of sideling along with George here, I find all the excuses, and “rationales” for the Democratic vote on the funding bill, just so much trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Sure. There’s a reason for everything. I have my “why” theories, too – I “understand” them because my brain works, but accept them, as excuses?! Not a bit of it! I’m not buying! Not a single reason has shown up yet, that would justify any Democratic support of that bill. Not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT should have voted for it. Not only on the basis of refusing to support the war, but also because of other items included in the bill – oil not the least among them! OUTRAGE, is what I feel. And I’m not buying that as a blanket demonization. It’s simply the fact of the matter. The “party” (and that is “their” rhetoric, not mine) did not hold up its’ mandate. And if it’s too hot in the kitchen then they oughtta get out!

In reference to “reasons”, commenter gave these:In the case of the funding bill – “they knew Bush would veto the bill, they would not be able to override it, and so more time would be wasted”.

And in the case of bringing Articles of Impeachment: … “it would suck all the energy out of Congress and they would get nothing else done.”

To which my printable response would have to be : OH POPPYCOCK!

What the devil does Congress have on its agenda so much more important – to this nation- and essentially to the world, in terms of our future conduct of foreign policy, international trade and monetary issues, and participation world peace - than spending their “time” and energy” on putting a stop to this runaway megalomaniac? If they got nothing else done in the first year, than to show the Americans, and the world, that in fact, we do stand for something, have values, oppose totalitarian regimes, and stand by our word, by impeaching and imprisoning everyone of the actors in this gross theater of horrors we are enduring ~ THAT would be monumental!! WHAT’S MORE IMPORTANT?

(and I bet, there would even be time left over, to go on down and do right by the people of New Orleans!)

In a more tempered vein, for a minute, anyway…I believe that if we do not do something that allows this country to acknowledge these wounds, and see that we, as “the people” can count on precisely the kind of Constitutional oversight and protection that we as a nation purport to stand for, in the eyes of the world, and in our own hearts, I believe we are in for big trouble. BIG. Trying to slide all this under the rug with platitudes and “understanding” will not allow this country to heal.

And to this, where writer says Congress will protect us from excessive liberalism:

“Even IF someone is branded as being "too liberal." IF they are, you can bet Congress would not let them get away with their most libreral stands anyway” …

And then follows that conclusion with this:

“I thought the same would be true of "too conservative" and it would be if more Republicans were principled. But we had an unintelligent, rubberstamp Republican Congress …”

I have to say ~ Hello?

Congress will look out for us, but, oh, wait a minute, sometimes they can't because of unprincipled people... well.. wait a minute...

Yoo-Hoo

The BUTS and IFS here are just too big for me! That adds up in my book to: Don’t be a damned fool and cast your vote thinking Congress will keep an extremist in line. And the reason they didn’t do their job this time was because …...

"ALL Congress people should be principled, but sadly the American public is too uninformed to vote for the best person, only the person who can afford the most sound bites." ...

You got it!

We were just too dumb to vote for the right guy! Looks like black and white and blanket condemnations are still in style at the end of this day!