WTF! Dems Lie on Iraq War Funding

Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

*****And Kucinich is the ONLY ONE publicly criticizing the wh0rish behavior?*****

<>In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).
<>
This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil. These same oil companies are still resolute about keeping the oil prices high at the pumps for US citizens (while refraining refinery capacity), so that they alone retain record-breaking profits. Kucinich explained he requested on the Congress floor that clause be removed from the Bill, and was finally assured it would be. He found it was not, and again demanded it be removed, and was then accused of ‘not being a loyal Democrat’.

I was sincerely hoping for better, but its business as usual in the august halls of government

If true, the Dems have some serious explaining to do to us!

This goes against everything they've said.

If this is true, we need to make sure the phones and E-mail servers at Pelosi and Reid's offices are swamped with complaints!

Schumer is being asked about the oil requirement in the bill



http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=402&letter_id=1176441821

steal the oil back when they initiated the war. The whole world knew it.

Remember the funding bill had a clause which said Bush must get Congressional approval to invade Iran.

AIPAC complained about the clause (right around Easter time) and Pelosi had the clause removed.

I expect that is what Kucinich is talking about when he is talking about the bill authorizes an Iran strike.

does the bill specifically say Bush can invade Iran or is it just ignoring Iran all together and just not saying he CAN'T invade Iran.

maybe I didn't word that well

Does it actually give permission in invade or is it just silent?

But from what I heard, that clause was removed, so now the question becomes open once again as to whether Bush can hit Iran.

Yes, we knew they would steal the oil, but did you know that the Democratic Party would be an active partner in this theft?

nt

Sorry, I question the source.

:shrug: MKJ

one of many articles I have read online about this duplicity...


http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-democrats-oil-1174575083

<snip>

That's a dubious proposition given that President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it passes. Meanwhile, about halfway through the 80-page supplemental bill is a section that demands that the Iraqi government enact “a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis” by this fall. That sounds perfectly fine, but the law in question turns out to be one that the Bush Administration and American energy firms have been pushing for years and that, as Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International explained last week in a New York Times op-ed, would allow international companies to take control of much of Iraq's oil “for a generation or more,” with no requirements to reinvest earnings in the country. Juhasz noted elsewhere that the Bush Administration dismissed nearly all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report—save for the recommendation that called for the United States to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter that asks, so far to no avail, that the call for passage of the oil law be stripped from the measure. “We cannot . . . support this law and continue to claim our actions are in the best interest of the Iraqi people,” he wrote.

Members of the Democratic leadership are still chasing the votes they need to try to pass the bill. If they get the votes, says Kucinich, he'll seek to offer an amendment to remove the oil law benchmark. But it looks like the House leadership plans to rule Kucinich out of order and not accept any amendments to the bill. “The Democrats say they're determined to not “let the perfect be the enemy of the good” with this bill,” said Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International. “But we're unclear as to how giving the Bush Administration and Big Oil exactly what they want most in Iraq, at the expense of Iraq's future, can be seen as good.”

.... If you would like more I would be happy to provide them.

But it comes as no surprise, given the many Dems who supported the original IWR when it was clear the administration was lying.

The Democrats are showing a "kinder, gentler machine-gun hand"...

When the Democrats in congress started equivocating on forcing a showdown with Bush on the Iraqi occupation, I knew we had been had. I think that the problem is that most of the anti-war activists and supporters are anti-war first and Democrats second. The anti-war voters were fooled into thinking that the Democrats would end the occupation. The Democrats may end it, eventually, but only after using it to their fullest benefit, and then only if it is politically expedient. That is the nature of American politics, today - Party first, country second...

It would be nice if they'd stop "triangulating", "compromising", and making excuses, and STOP the goddam war by defunding it.

we will see this type of thing...They like the money every bit as much as Republicans do....

This was reported a few weeks ago.

Is that we, the people, are going to hold their feet to the fire, as much if not more than we do the repugs!

Is this the new Iran War Resolution?

This does NOT say that Bush can invade Iran. In fact, the Bush administration's use of the IWR as allowing them to attack Iraq could be taken as precedent that they need an Iran War Resolution. The IWR was specifically limited to Iraq.

The oil thing is harder to understand. What is actually written in the bill - equitably dividing the oil revenue seems necessary to give everyone a stake in the country being stable. That this hasn't been resolved has been asore point in hearings of the SFRC with Kerry, Boxer and Feingold speaking of it.

I don't understand how the distribution of revenue impacts the ownership of the oil. Anything from the government owing it to a complete free market with open bids to take over various pieces could then have a tax that is distributed back equitably.

Just because Kuchinich said it, doesn't make it so. Could it be that he is looking for additional reasons to defend why he and a few others on the left splintered off?

I'd expect this sort of mess from the Repubs, not the Dems.

this and get busy calling Congress!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I have been pissed about it and proud of Dennis for speaking out against the enablers in congress. This war will never fucking end if there is no difference in US policy between the two parties.

more here....

Democrats Vow to Bring the Oil Back Home


<snip>

That's a dubious proposition given that President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it passes. Meanwhile, about halfway through the 80-page supplemental bill is a section that demands that the Iraqi government enact “a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis” by this fall. That sounds perfectly fine, but the law in question turns out to be one that the Bush Administration and American energy firms have been pushing for years and that, as Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International explained last week in a New York Times op-ed, would allow international companies to take control of much of Iraq's oil “for a generation or more,” with no requirements to reinvest earnings in the country. Juhasz noted elsewhere that the Bush Administration dismissed nearly all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report—save for the recommendation that called for the United States to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter that asks, so far to no avail, that the call for passage of the oil law be stripped from the measure. “We cannot . . . support this law and continue to claim our actions are in the best interest of the Iraqi people,” he wrote.

Members of the Democratic leadership are still chasing the votes they need to try to pass the bill. If they get the votes, says Kucinich, he'll seek to offer an amendment to remove the oil law benchmark. But it looks like the House leadership plans to rule Kucinich out of order and not accept any amendments to the bill. “The Democrats say they're determined to not “let the perfect be the enemy of the good” with this bill,” said Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International. “But we're unclear as to how giving the Bush Administration and Big Oil exactly what they want most in Iraq, at the expense of Iraq's future, can be seen as good.”


http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-democrats-oil-1174575083

the OP statements...but is it really that much of a surprise that some dems are on the same page as most of the GOP and the corporatists? Shouldn't be a surprise to DUrs, who are generally well-informed and who have access to the HUGE amount of information, opinion, sources, and links available on DU. There are more than enough reasons to question members of our own party and we have a duty to do so. I would like to think that only the Bush 28% observe blind loyalty by placing their heads in the sand.

Why did Gravel say that the other dem candidates scared him? Maybe he's out there, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

listening to he and Dennis is music to my ears. They do not give a shit about the DLC/AIPAC/Corporatist agenda. They care about us and our country. Period.

to ask about the above. Of course, nothing is firm at the moment but the woman who answered the phone said that yes, privatization is being discussed. Iran is not part of the discussion according to this person.

My congressman is Hastert - I have no political voice other than my own.

Speakers Office Phone is: 202-225-0100.

We have a new one, you know. And it ain't Hastert.

new resident in that office I hear. :)

Now that Hastert isn't speaker, he's not doing anything for his constituents. Haven't heard a peep from his office about anything.

whom?

When it comes to Dem bashing on DU.

And I wouldn't call it bashing, more like a wake up call that what you're being sold isn't always what you think you're buying.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=26308

American Chronicle

Jane Caldwell

A "music journalist". No wonder she couldn't be bothered to include any actual quotes.

Democrats Vow to Bring the Oil Back Home

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-democrats-oil-1174575083

That's a dubious proposition given that President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it passes. Meanwhile, about halfway through the 80-page supplemental bill is a section that demands that the Iraqi government enact “a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis” by this fall. That sounds perfectly fine, but the law in question turns out to be one that the Bush Administration and American energy firms have been pushing for years and that, as Antonia Juhasz of Oil Change International explained last week in a New York Times op-ed, would allow international companies to take control of much of Iraq's oil “for a generation or more,” with no requirements to reinvest earnings in the country. Juhasz noted elsewhere that the Bush Administration dismissed nearly all of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report—save for the recommendation that called for the United States to “assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise” and to “encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been circulating a “Dear Colleague” letter that asks, so far to no avail, that the call for passage of the oil law be stripped from the measure. “We cannot . . . support this law and continue to claim our actions are in the best interest of the Iraqi people,” he wrote.

Members of the Democratic leadership are still chasing the votes they need to try to pass the bill. If they get the votes, says Kucinich, he'll seek to offer an amendment to remove the oil law benchmark. But it looks like the House leadership plans to rule Kucinich out of order and not accept any amendments to the bill. “The Democrats say they're determined to not “let the perfect be the enemy of the good” with this bill,” said Steve Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International. “But we're unclear as to how giving the Bush Administration and Big Oil exactly what they want most in Iraq, at the expense of Iraq's future, can be seen as good.”

* * *
I would be happy to provide more links if you still don't believe it.

Hm. Did I miss a memo about Kucinich resigning from the Democratic Party?

The fact that the bill didn't contain clause saying Bush cannot invade Iran without congressional approval is not carte blanche authority for Bush to invade iran without congressional authority.

because it doesn't say he can't do that either.

(actually I agree 100% with you.)

to finally get us out of Vietnam?

Do you really believe that anything has changed since then?

There are huge profits and campaign contributions to be had from murdering and stealing from the Iraqis. Do you think that just because the sheeple are bleating a little that they are going to turn their backs on these?

a solid majority in both houses of congress, and a Congress finally willing to cut the funding. It certainly helped that that fucking war criminal Nixon had gotten most of our troops out of vietnam so that the lunacy of 'supporting the troops' by continuing to put them in harms way for no good reason at all could not be used to stall this action. 1975 - ten years after the escalation by that fucking war criminal Johnson, and about 8 years after it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the war was both total bullshit and completely unwinnable.

at what was and how it happened.

Nixon ran in '68 on a promise that "new leadership will end the war", seven years later we finally left. Millions in the streets and American cities in flames were not enough to pry the corporate parasites and their politiwhores away from their blood-soaked profits.

What is different today? Are the politicians more honest? Are the American citizens more aware, more involved?
:kick:

... to invade. He doesn't have the right to do so, and so that clause was/is unnecessary. (Though some felt that its existence would make the matter more clear to Bushie.)

How does Bush have the "right" to invade Iran? Is Iran an imminent threat to the US?

Were you "deceived"? Where the Dems who voted for IWR "deceived"? Do the terrorists "hate you for your freedom"?

Enough of the denial, please.

The issue in question in the OP is the Dems removing the explicit "do not invade Iran" statement from the legislation somehow giving Bush "carte blanche" to invade. This hypothesis is incorrect since Bush has no such authority to invade without an authorization from Congress.

I'm not questioning that Bush may still bomb or invade, but it won't be because the Dems have "allowed" him to do so. It will be because he's an out-of-control madman.

I thought it was just something I had missed.

when will anyone in Congress get the message that the people voted to GET OUT OF IRAQ in Nov?????

Not tommorow not three weeks from now, not ten years from now , like four years ago already .G-d dam it

n/t

It is in the primaries where we have a real chance to change this behavior, by supporting those who will truly support our views. After that, we vote Dem. But until that time, we make it clear that no seat (in the Dem primary) is to be taken for granted.

..such as funding for Katrina rebuilding - totally unrelated - but I'm told it was IN there. (friend mentioned it - I'd give links, etc if I had them - anyone else?)

Go figure...nice. eh?

Remember: It's what they DON'T tell you you need to be worried about.

Do you think Katrina has led to emergencies? The man in your avatar certainly does. It also includes a lot of funding for Walter Reed and the underfunded VA. There is funding for more of the veteran centers that help soldiers readjust to civilian life, including dealing with PTSD. The existing centers were created to help Vietnam Veterans and were pushed by people like the Vietnam Veterans of America. The expansion was put in by Senator Kerry, who got some additional, but not enough, money last year.

It is the Republican line that this bill is filled with pork. There likely is some pork, but much of the non-war funding is for items like those. I would argue that taking care of the troops when they return is war related and is NOW an emergency.

EVERYONE knows that would be a total and complete disaster except maybe Cheney and Bush. Nobody in Congress is that stupid to let Bush have free reign to bomb Iran at will.

Makes no sense.

the Bush cabal did.

There's absolutely no point in bothering with this bill if its this useless.

Kudos to Dennis for having the courage to point it out.

Message to Dems: grow a pair and get back to the drawing board.

Congress regarding ending this war... This should be a no-brainer, but for some reason, they allow this farce to continue in all it's failed misery....