Iraq: the truth even the Democrats won't tell you

"bush lied about the evidence leading up to the invasion of Iraq." Democrats have finally joined the DU chorus ... how many of us on DU believed bush had PROVEN the case for war? how many of us felt the EVIDENCE was undeniable? how many of us understood that, regardless of what facts we did or didn't have, bush could NOT be trusted?

and while some will choose NOT to FORGIVE those Democrats who voted for war, and let's NOT pretend the IWR was anything but that, there can be no denying that Democrats have FINALLY launched an all out campaign to uncover the truth about how bush fixed the evidence around the policy, i.e., he "manufactured and manipulated" the evidence ...

so, on their newfound combativeness and their admission of either mistakes or very poor judgment, let's at least give them a little credit ...

BUT NOT SO FAST THERE ... these newest arrivals to the chorus are STILL not telling the American people the essential truths about the war in Iraq ... I won't ascribe motives to this failure but suffice it to say that their conduct is totally unacceptable ... either Democrats will remain complicit by their silence or they will help prosecute the foreign policy crimes of the bush administration ... protect or prosecute; those are the choices ...

we cannot continue to invade, occupy and control sovereign nations in the Middle East ... recent (and not so recent) evidence (see article excerpts below) suggests that the REAL reason for the invasion of Iraq was a belief that anti-American governments, like Saddam's government before the invasion (and a potentially pro-Iranian government after Saddam), planned to cut-off US access to OPEC oil ... some on the left have viewed the "oil issue" as nothing more than a corporate grab for oil by cheney's Halliburton and other trans-national oil companies ... perhaps this was the whole story; perhaps not ... maybe corporate greed was only a bi-product, not a primary motivator, of the policy to invade and occupy the Middle East to procure and protect sources of oil ...

and, if so, one could make a case, whether morally supportable or not, that the invasion was done primarily for the national benefit ... BUT, even if this had been the case, failing to put this discussion before the American people in a so-called democracy was, and is, totally reprehensible ... Democrats should not allow this cover-up to continue ...

some have dismissed this "theory" of an OPEC cut-off of oil sales to the US arguing that they would always be motivated by profits ... maybe ... or maybe the hatred for the US in that part of the world would have been the controlling factor ...

Democrats must go beyond calling for investigations of whether bush lied about the evidence that led to war ... even if they could prove these lies, bush could still mount at least some form of defense by arguing that Saddam was still a very dangerous and evil man with a very clear anti-American agenda ... a defense like that still MIGHT be marketable to the American people ... however, making a case that we went to war to control OPEC oil is a much tougher sell ... this changes the justification from "we're the good guy liberators" to "we're looking out for ourselves" ... hiding behind idealism, the troops, liberating Iraqis, "fighting them over there", building stability and democracy and an American self-image that Americans want to believe in, allowed bush to sell his war; coming clean that we invaded Iraq to help ourselves to someone else's oil would be the platform falling away from beneath the hanged man ... if you really want to "get bush", this is an essential piece of the case against him ... oh, and it's the right thing to do if American values mean anything anymore ...

it is time for Democrats to tell the truth about bush's MOTIVES for war ... applaud the Democrats for demanding the truth about his fabrication of evidence; but demand that they investigate WHY bush wanted to go to war so badly that he was willing to manufacture his case and lie about his justification ...

either Democrats trust Americans with the hard truths or they are complicit in bush's evil doings ... the choice is theirs ...

used diplomacy and told them that we wanted all the terrorists who were being harbored in Iraq, we would have perhaps 2 or three people in a gulag somewhere, 2000 some mothers, fathers brothers sisters still home and safe... 15,000+ un-maimed Americans, 200+ billion dollars in the piggy bank to fund hurricane relief and so forth. We chose to take the violent path and we deserve the whirlwind that this choice has spun all around us.

and a domestic energy policy that can't see beyond oil as a national fuel ...

add the greed factor, comes killing and taking, that's the real motivation behind this administration.

That Bush misled us into war.

mislead: verb: To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.

you've provided ZERO information to support what you said ...

did Kerry say, in 2003, that bush was pushing for war because there was a risk OPEC would cut-off US access to oil?

I do have a quote from 2003 that, although you may have wanted a hand puppet that would say exactly what you were looking for, I still think where Kerry is headed is in a positive direction:

"The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,"? continued Kerry, "I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn?t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.?"

     History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

     Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, ?Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn't vote for me.? "

here ya go ... let's not use my words and opinions, let's use his ...

but first, you said "I still think where Kerry is headed is in a positive direction" ... did i suggest otherwise anywhere in this thread??? ... i made no comment about Kerry's "direction" ... you're making an argument about something not stated by me in this thread ... you brought it up and then made arguments against things i never stated ...

i also made no comment about whether Kerry would or wouldn't have gone to war IF he had been President ...

ultimately you are raising a bunch of points not relevant to this thread ...

but, since you want to discuss Kerry's IWR vote in greater detail, let's look at some of Kerry's own words for insight ... and let's understand that in voting for the IWR, regardless of what Kerry hoped would happen and regardless of what he would have done if he had been President, he was voting to authorize war, that is, he was voting to give bush the authority he wanted to use force in Iraq, and it was a MISTAKE ...

let's focus on Kerry's acknowledgment that he made a mistake and that the IWR gave bush authority to use force ... here's a few excerpts from Kerry's recent statement where he acknowledges his "share of the responsibility" and his "mistakes of the past" because he "went to war" and because he voted for the IWR that was, in the end, an authorization, regardless of other talk about the UN or weapons inspectors, to "authorize the use of force":



let's try to keep this straight ... i understand Kerry thought war should only be used as a last resort ... i understand he wanted to use diplomacy and work with the international community and through the UN ... i understand that he MIGHT NOT have gone to Iraq if he had been President ... the point is, he made a mistake, as he acknowledged, by voting to authorize bush to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

in the end, the mistake Kerry made, as the quote you provided stated unequivocally, was that he "took the President at his word" ... the mistake Kerry, and far too many others made when they trusted bush and voted to give him the authority to use force in Iraq, has helped enable one of the worst, if not the worst, foreign policy disasters in this nation's history ...

.... it was obvious to almost everyone at DU that Bush was going to start this war NO MATTER WHAT.

Kerry's words are those of someone bending the truth or one who's perceptions were amazingly inept to begin with.

I'm not listening to Bush** spin his ass off "everyone thought Saddam had WMDs" and I'm not listening to Kerry's version either, it is pure horseshit.

... they were starting to sell it in Euros (Hussein started doing that in 1998), Iran is going to be denominating oil in Euros by this spring when it opens its bourse, and I say this not because of the general tone and tenor in the Middle East, but because of Venezuela.

There was no general outcry from the US about Venezuela--they didn't give a shit about Chavez--until he had the Hydrocarbon Act passed. All of a sudden, oil extractors were paying a heftier royalty to Venezuela. That cut into their profits.

This has never been about gaining access to oil. Countries, for the most part (with the exception of 1973 and 1978), have been willing to sell us what we require. This is really about two things. Keeping the dollar propped up and guaranteeing our multinational oil corporations cheap, and therefore, highly profitable, oil.

i actually recalled some of this information after i made the post ... i'm glad you raised this issue ...

does it contradict what Wilkerson and O'Neill spoke about in the excerpt I provided?

I've read other articles about the oil bourse and threats to switch to the Euro ... does this lead to the same policy as a restriction on access to oil would do?

or does this return to the argument that while oil procurement would be in the national interest, protecting against a conversion to the Euro would only be motivated by corporate greed? what i'm not clear about is whether a conversion of oil currency to the Euro would cause a devastating collapse of the US economy ...

what i'm asking here is whether a case, an honest case, can be made that the policy in the Middle East, however misguided and immoral i believe it is, was at least made in the national interest with oil company profits being a by-product?

fwiw, here's an excerpt from what O'Neill had to say (in Suskind's book):

"On Feb. 3, 2001 – only two weeks after Bush took office – an NSC document instructed NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney's Energy Task Force because it was "melding" two previously unrelated areas of policy: the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields."

... so I don't see that as a valid point. But, let's be frank--the neo-cons had a vision of turning Iraq into a completely privatized playground, where US corporations could take what they wanted out of the Iraqi economy. That much has been verified--there was a 100-page State Dept. document outlining the whole program.

Now, with regard to economic issues, are tax cuts for the wealthy and encouraging the outsourcing of the economy, thus building huge current account deficits moral? No, of course not, but they both impinge on the strength of the dollar. That's where the conversion to Euros comes in. If countries need Euros to trade in oil, that will necessarily, at some point, require those countries to sell dollars to buy Euros. Sell-offs of the dollar mean the value goes down.

The dollars those countries have held to trade in oil amount to a huge reserve account for the US--eventually those dollars have to come back to the US in some form--usually in loans or investment. What happens when that reserve disappears? Not as much in the way of loans or investment for us.

We've been living on borrowed time with regard to the strength of the dollar for the last thirty years, so the notion that it would somehow be moral to fight wars to protect the strength of our economy after embarking on a financialization of the economy which created the problem in the first place is kind of specious, don't you think?

As for O'Neill's remarks, I don't see anything in that which suggests that there was any necessity--just because the NSC sends a memo doesn't mean that it's truly about our national security. Remember, Bush and Cheney are the ranking members of the NSC.

Wilkerson, I don't know. I'm not inclined to trust him because I think he's doing some revising of history himself to protect his boss' image. I didn't hear Wilkerson screaming bloody murder before the IWR or the beginning of the war. Sure, he might have been warning a few people quietly, within the system, about consequences, but in the Bush administration, that's like pissing on your own shoes.

No, finally, this was about corporate rape. Look at what happened. Was there anything that even vaguely resembled ethical management of Iraq after the fall of Baghdad? Hell, no. It was a damned free-for-all, and people in this administration (along with Chalabi's crew) were stealing both American taxpayers and the Iraqis blind. It's no accident that for most of the time that the CPA was in charge, Halliburton was overseeing the movement of oil out of Iraq, and that they weren't metering it. They were stealing it--because they could.

This wasn't a war of necessity--from any standpoint. It was a war of opportunity. We had our first warning about the nasty entanglements of oil and foreign policy over thirty years ago, and what did we do? We pitched out Carter because of his "wear your sweater" routine and voted in people who would use the military to threaten the rest of the world if it didn't toe our line and who consistently defunded renewable energy R&D and helped put us into near-penury through tax cuts for their friends. Even if the situation was more desperate than it actually was, whose fault would that be?

When looking at legislation, I've always been told to look for the one-eyed bearded man with a limp, i.e., who benefits. It's appropriate to ask, "who benefited from all this?" The oil companies are all posting record profits, and Bush insured his re-election. I don't see that as accidental, or just a freak happenstance of the so-called "free market" or politics as usual. I see it as part of a plan that's been unfolding for years.

Cheers.

I am starting to understand the broader picture about Iraq as it relates to oil and the strength of the dollar.

Since the beginning of time, men and nations have fought over distribution of resources. I think fighting over oil is too NAKED a reason for our modern senibilities to go to war over, so we have to cloak it in a disguise that we are going for reasons of self-defense (WMDs) or moral imperative, i.e. "liberate the Iraquis from a cruel dictator" or "bringing Democracy to the world". I get it.

Petrodollar Warfare: Neo-cons versus the rest of the world - a MUST READ

this article is really long and it's a little complicated ... DU'ers should invest the time to read it ...

but, for you headline readers out there, here are the basics:
1. neo-cons and big oil have maintained their global power by keeping the dollar as the currency standard for international oil transactions
2. Saddam "sealed his fate" in 2000 when he said he was going to move Iraq to euros
3. Iran plans to open a "bourse" (an oil trading market) that would likely "end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency"
4. Cheney has threatened to nuke Iran ... the pretense of terrorism and Iran building nuclear weapons is a smoke screen for the need to help big oil maintain control of international oil markets
5. China has a massive interest in Iran and US attacks on Iran could bring about a confrontation with China
6. all of this is beyond the radar of most Americans because "five U.S. major media conglomerates control 90% of information flow in the U.S"
7. Peak oil is putting increasing pressure on the US and making it more difficult for the US to control "petrodollars"

that should be enough to peak your curiosity ... this stuff is truly mind boggling ... stick with the article even though it's really long ... it's worth it if you want to understand what's really going on ...

here's the link: http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17451

argue with it?

Just ask Mrs. Grumpy about her husband's cousin's lecture about
"Country B" needing "Product X"....blah, blah, blah.

What the hell was THEIR SAND doing on OUR OIL?

THAT was something that Bushco simply could not tolerate. They would bleed money if that happened.

I am totally opposed to the Iraq war, but every now and then I'd ask myself, "So, if the new Iranian bourse is a huge monetary threat, and if Saddam's switching from dollars to euros was a huge monetary threat, when I oppose this war, am I supporting a position that will make America (including me) much poorer?"

It worried me a little. But then it occurred to me: Bush/Cheney were doing this war to protect THEIR investments and THEIR fortunes---NOT my piddling little investments or capital. THEY stand to lose a lot if the above two things happen. I (and every average American) stand to lose little.

Gee, it's tough being at the top. Being filthy rich, being festooned with layer upon layer of ill-gotten gains. When you lose, you lose BIG.

But those of us who are not rich can shrug our shoulders and laugh. That part is nice.

here's where i arrived ...

let's accept, even as a hypothetical, that either the Iranian bourse and a feared conversion to the euro OR a cut-off of access to oil posed a very real risk to the US ... let's use that as a starting premise ... and let's even acknowledge, again hypothetically, that oil company greed was seen by bush/cheney as a desirable objective but was not the ultimate motivation to invade Iraq ...

so, in the above scenario, we allow bush the best case he could make to invade Iraq and install a pro-US puppet government ... it's his best case because, if true, it allows him to make the case that he was at least trying to act in the national interest ...

and if we accept all that, what then was, and is, the right policy and what then was, and is, the wrong policy???

my short answer is that i would never support this imperialistic foreign policy even if the survival of the nation were at stake ... we should be governed by our laws and our values and cannot do whatever the hell we want to even if survival is on the line ... perhaps it would be analogous to argue that a starving man has no right to invade your house at gun point, kill a few family members who resist, and then remain as long as the food holds out ...

my longer answer is that if we are going to value our democracy, we cannot have a government that believes it knows what's best for us and refuses to tell us the truth because we might make choices that they don't agree with ... the day our national values and our beliefs in right and wrong are sold out without truth and openness in the halls of our government is the day that our democracy ceases to exist ...

so while i personally would honor my core beliefs and i believe the core beliefs of the American people, at a minimum, honesty and integrity required that this critical issue should have been put before the American people for their consent or their rejection ...

even the best case for bush, and perhaps the Congress that enabled him, is really not a very good case at all ...

It was last spring and Wes Clark had been invited to appear on the Bill Maher show. At the time Maher was going through his phase of saying "maybe Bush got it right".

Afterwards, the guests on the show went out to a restaurant (I think that is tradition after the show), along with a couple of Clarkies who were in the audience. One of the Clarkies said she saw General Clark get into a heated argument with Bill Maher. Clark was agitated, kept brushing his hand through his hair, and was heard to say, "Bill, even if the war went the way Bush wanted it to, YOU CAN'T LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! You just can't do that!"

On another note: Bush's ghostwriter for his autobiography (the one that was never published?), said that when Bush was governor, Bush told him that he wanted to be a "Wartime President because then you had clout and could get your domestic agenda passed." So maybe all the complexities that you stated were the ideas of Cheney and the NeoCons; but maybe the "Wartime President thing" was a Rove/Bush simple-minded vanity thing, and the Cheney crowd used it to their own ends. (Pretty scarey stuff, if true).

without going into all the gory details, Clark participated in an online blog a few months ago and i had the opportunity to raise some questions with him and get a response ... well, sort of a response ...

i had suggested that we were in Iraq for imperialistic reasons and asked him whether he agreed that Democrats should make this point an issue (or an argument to that effect - can't remember my exact question) ...

his response did not satisfy me and now seems even more interesting in the context of this thread ...

General Clark said, and i paraphrase from memory, "if we want oil we should pay for it" ...

now, if the question of imperialism merely meant the "theft" of oil, one might accept his response ... but if one saw an Iraq where the procurement and production of oil was totally controlled by the US and by BIG OIL, and they could control the market and set the price and even exclude "unfriendly countries" from gaining access to purchasing the oil unless "certain conditions" were met, then a position of merely "buying the oil" is not really responsive to what imperialism might imply ...

i'll just leave this by returning my focus to a call on Democrats to "out bush" and tell the American people the truth about his motives ... DU'ers are all keyed up, and rightfully so, about calls for investigations about bush's lies about pre-war evidence ... but even disclosures of those lies does not reveal the truth about why the lies were told and about why we remain in Iraq ...

again, Democrats will either be complicit in these lies or they will prosecute the case against this wrong and immoral imperialism ... so far, things have been far too quiet ...

that Our President did it all to protect the national interest, I think that that hypothetical is one of the more easily-dismissed ones as to "why he did it".

dragged his feet. America and Great Britain knew that if the Euro took off that it would undermine America's Dominance in the World Financial Markets. We could no longer manipulate the rest of the world through the IMF and World Bank. It was Blair joined with Bush to keep power. And they were very worried about the ME's Oil resources being traded in Euro's not dollars or pounds. I think that was Blair's chief goal.

But for Bush and the Neo-Cons it was complicated by the Neo-Cons obsession with keeping Israel protected and with Bush being run by Cheney and Rummy (bloodthirsty Cold Warriers looking for a new foe to focus on) the whole Iraq Invasion became a necessity.

:shrug: That's my 2 cents, anyway.

I wasn't as clear as to why Blair was such a butt-boy for Bush. Thanks for the input, it has helped me understand.

There are wheels within wheels within wheels.

The reasons among the cabal are varied although converging. I need a timeline that starts in 1969, and even then there are stacks of papers written by the mongers that would need to read to understand the whole.

As for this lastest spat of oops by the Democrats, I'm very happy to hear/read the latest. Nevertheless, "to oops or not to oops" is not the question. I doubt that many have done all of their homework, and in that lies the danger of trying to stomp this philosophy out once and for all.

i just looked at the reviews on Amazon of the book you mentioned ... i noticed something i'd never seen before ...

most of the reviewers gave the books very high marks ... but many of those reviewing the reviewers gave very low marks ... the "did you find this review helpful" seemed to consistently get as many negatives as positives ... not sure what this means but it seemed weird ...

anyway, i haven't read it ... are you giving it your official DZ recommended stamp of approval? i'm on a waiting list to read Scott Ritter's "Iraq Confidential" ... that might not become available for a few months ...

consider this through the lens of LIHOP and MIHOP ... one person says: "do you really believe they would kill 2000 Americans on 9/11 just to build a case to invade the Middle East so that Halliburton could make larger profits?"

so, there you might have a tough case to make ... but suppose the neocons really believed that the US could not withstand either a politically motivated "we hate America" cut-off of OPEC oil or they believed Saddam or other OPEC powers were really going to convert to the euro devastating the US economy and posing a very real threat to the American empire ... suppose they envisioned Americans freezing in their homes with no jobs, no fuel and no hope of restoring the American economy ...

could one envision a situation whereby the "sacrifice" of those in the WTC would be deemed a necessary cost to rally Americans against the fear of greater devastation at the hands of OPEC power? if so, both LIHOP and MIHOP would be very much in play ...

Note: I haven't finished it yet. But just for the information about the cabal it is worth it.

Edit: He tells it like it is. The Dems were afraid that they would get caught as they did after Gulf War I, watching the troops get candy and flowers. That's why they voted the way they did.

OK ... i just hate reading about neo-cons though ... it makes me feel kinda dirty ... not sure how much of it i can take but i'll see if my local library can get a copy ...

thanks for the tip ...

As for the neocons, it is very interesting, shocking, and in retrospect laughable. They, who absolutely do not believe in "nation building" take on Iraq. First, they actually did think that a Milton-Friedman style something could rise up under Chalabi (a product of Friedman U of C).

Also, because they do not believe in "nation building" they refused to plan for stage 4, thus no exit strategy.

Wolfowitz wants to spead democracy with or without the point of gun.

Feith and Wurmser need to go to jail. Their grand scheme would increase military action in Israel, move the Palestinians to Jordan, and have Jordan take over Iraq. I think its called "move over one."

Most interesting, the Saudis didn't want this war.

it focusses on petrodollars and the Iranian oil bourse ... the article is both long and intense:

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17451

maybe i'll repost my old thread about it in its own thread ...

btw, i put in a request for Assassins' Gate ... not sure when it will be available but my book report will follow ... thanks for the tip!! ... i wonder how Packer addresses the issues raised in the link above ...

I'd read some of this before the war, and I know that Chavez has recently made the same sort of remarks. A few things come to mind: Cheney would be the obvious member of the cabal to think this a matter of concern; for many of the heavy hitters--Wolfowitz etal--they were so driven by their ideology, that while they might use this for an argument, they personally didn't need this footnote to advocate for war; and finally, thinking that this shift in the money markets would further deteriorate the U.S. economy would assume that they cared. All that big-money would need is to know when it was coming so that they could shift their funds in time. America as a third-world country actually benefits quite a few of these thugs.

It will be interesting to see what China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia will do. Their dollars hold us hostage now, and I'm sure they enjoy that position very much.

Jeezus god, I want my country back, the one that lured my grandparents out of those hills of Prague and Serbia.

You've got THAT right.

I can't get over the number of times congresspeople are seemingly just learning things we at DU had been discussing for months, years even!

I understand these may be busy people --but isn't that what STAFF is for?

I am astounded at the amount of information of which Washington beltway types are completely unaware.

And if that was bad enough - so is the US press!!

skewered on foreign policy is because ideologically they cannot reconcile their democratic instincts with being a hegemonic empire. I think this might explain your insightful hypothesis: "I doubt that many have done all of their homework .." Have you read Pelletiere's "Iraq and the International Oil System". It's an excellently sourced and detailed synopsis about our involvement in the M.E.
Dick Gregory once mused that if our democracy is worth selling why do we insist on exporting it at the barrel of gun? Had we believed in the product we were selling I doubt we'd be shivering in our boots about China. Instead, rather than a multi-ethnic democracy run on ever increasing amounts of renewable energy and boasting the finest health care system, education and fine arts centers in the world we are going broke, divided, militarily overstretched and diplomatically isolated. Here lies: Man's Hubris: Greatest Ever will mark our tombstone.
But then I admit I'm also a dreamer.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush


Bush Regime Iraq Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5. The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.


“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

*The Bush Regime, The Oligarchy and the Top Dems have agreed that around 60% of US Troops will be withdrawn before the '06 Elections. Of course, the remaining force will protect the oil that will be funneled to US Oil Corps.

First about the Democrats: nearly all the Democrats have few to no foreign policy people on their staffs. Our representatives vote on and give speeches about lots of issues of which they know little or nothing. Most of them are lawyers who know plenty about laws and procedures. Over time they become well versed in one or more of their pet topics, which is good. But assuming that they know everything about stem cell research, or whatever, is silly. They often don't know anymore than you or I. They just give speeches written from briefs. It's not bad, it is just the way it is. Biden is the Democrat "go-to" guy; what does that say?

Dick Gregory makes a lot of sense; I doubt he would have voted for the IWR.

Since the end of the Cold War and its policy of containment, there has been no foreign policy. Clinton knows lots about lots, but foreign policy was not his thing. He improved by his second term because he's smart, but he was also manipulated by the neocons who are in there now. Anyway, his foreign policy was shaping up to be one of humanitarian intervention with the goal being to spread economic prosperity and democracy to places where it could change the internal dynamics of states: Nation Building. But that policy was never solidly in place.

It was this void that permitted the neocons to take over. Their foreign policy is from hell, and in addition, it is stupid. They too want to spread democracy, but paying no attention to Gregory, want to use the gun. Topple a bad guy here and there, install a crony, and advance the interests of the American Empire.

I didn't know much about Iraq before this mess began. Nevertheless, I did know that with 3 competing religions, one of which, the majority one, was aligned with the mullahs of Iran, that the very idea of a representational democracy was a flying pig. I figured that once the despot Saddam was gone, all hell would break loose. Think Tito.

That is why the IWR vote was the worse possible vote to cast. And that is why, although I'm glad to see all the Democrats lining up to say "ooops!" I am not impressed. This is not a matter of the lying sack-o-monkey-brains in the WHouse, the entire idea was wrong. Oh, and everyone knew that the build up for war had begun, and bush was going to war.

We now have created a regional mess, one that will haunt every child born in the USA for years to come. I respect the Democrats who voted "no" and put their country ahead of their political egos.

Thank you for the compliment.:)

philosophy that can be distinguished. Somewhere along the way and Pelletiere outlines this evolution extremely well, the State Dept. became fused with the Rockefellers ie, Standard Oil which bequeathed us the Council on Foreign Relations which now sets policy for both parties. (the only genuine opposition comes from rival oil interests) It is no accident that our current Secretary of State had an oil tanker named for her or that she studied under Madeleine Albright's husband. And as you correctly point out this abdication of responsibility by our politicians has led to the demise of our nation's health, wealth and universal respect.

You guys invent scares for themselves. Everyone in the ME knows that Saddam is totally out of politics since Iran, and even in Iran the conflict was largely economical. He was a reasonable dictator. He didn't have a serious voice in OPEC. And the war was not about lowering the price of oil - what corporation benefits from lower prices - but about increasing the price. So simple. And predictable. And successful.

The great game redux looks at oil as a resource, one that insures the winner the victory.

Agree, Saddam was a tin-pot dictator, as for reasonable, I suppose that would be a matter of whose family you talked to. I certainly wouldn't vote for him.

Again agree, the war was never meant to lower the price of oil, but it was meant to change the name of the people with their grip on the oil. It's not the price; it's the power.

The sanctions, cruel and failing, had to be lifted, and eventually Saddam could sell to other markets: think China. But most of all...who ever has the most oil wins the war. PNAC looks ahead to the looming war with China. Crazy people.

There is no ONE reason we went to war. And as for the thinking behind Cheney's office door, we know nada. Even things that were discussed in front of O'Neill and Clarke, ended up being over ruled over night. By whom? No one knows.