[Dialogue] How Horrible!

[Ellen and David Rebstock]

Maybe the 216 Democrats didn't read the benchmarks. Absolutely zip was 
covered by the media as to what the benchmarks (blackmail) is to provide 
reconstruction money that we really haven't done too well on to date anyway. 
Given what the American people are brainwashed with the vote isn't a 
surprise.  Or are we all as this Colonel says afraid of giving up our one 
person cars. 20 to 30 years sounds pretty permanent to me.

Dave Rebstock


Col Ann Wright is a former ambassador

    What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil 
for US Companies
    By Ann Wright
    t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
    Saturday 26 May 2007


   On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq.
The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's
oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal,
the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded
Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the
Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no
reconstruction funds.
    This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to
pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction
funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has
destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company
consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the
Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The
remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones,
would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess
how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant
Iraqi government.)
    No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international
oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the
Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get
reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources
and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.
    What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United
States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill,
other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil
interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic
language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most
of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases
will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will
be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the
compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate
interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.
    With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its
benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US
invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for
US corporations.
    Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide
whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured
to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the
biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.
    It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military
Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time
protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a
tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we
want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the
180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?
    Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis
have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the
administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be
dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.
    How much more can our military and their families take?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and
retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in
Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone,
Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of
State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.
  -------


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles or Doris Hahn" <cdhahn at flash.net>
To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] How Horrible!


I do not know all the machinations that led to the
vote, however I am quite sure that the democrats are
trying to figure out how to operate with a very slim
majority, and with a vetoing president.  If you feel
frustrated, think back six months, or a year or thee
years, or five years.  Let's give them a chance.  I
want a resolution to rescind the authorization for the
war---which was supidly open ended.

Charles Hahn

--- KroegerD at aol.com wrote:

> Boy is this right on target!.  Michael Lerner hit
> the nail on the head  when
> he posed the rhetorical question, (paraphrased)"why
> should we vote for
> democrats when they don't have the courage to end
> this war?  How could they  ever
> have the courage to defend our country from the real
> threats we  face?"
>
> What a horrible disappointment to have Amy
> Klobuchar, our  Minnnesota
> Welstoneian hope, vote yes!
>
> I feel abandoned and alone.  This is the political
> Dark Night of the  Soul.
>
> Dick Kroeger
>
>
>
> Published on Friday, May 25,  2007 by _Working For
> Change_
>
(http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/we_gave_them_our_hearts_they_g.html)
>
> We Gave Them Our Hearts, They Gave Him A Blank Check
> by David Sirota
>
>
> It is a dark day in our nationâ?Ts history. That
> sounds melodramatic -  but it
> is true. Today America watched a Democratic Party
> kick them square  in the
> teeth - all in order to continue the _most
> unpopular war in a generation_
>
(http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/24/poll_public_over
> whelmingly_wanted_withdrawal_timetables)  at the
> request of the most
> unpopular  president in a generation at a time polls
> show a larger percentage of the
> public thinks America is going in the wrong
> direction than _ever  recorded in
> polling history_
> (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/opinion/p
> olls/main2846638.shtml) .
> The numbers are not pretty. First, _216 House
> Democrats  cast the key vote_
> (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll418.xml)  to
> send a blank check Iraq War
> funding bill over to  the Senate. As I reported at
> the beginning of the day and
> as the _Associated  Press_
>
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=3210812&page=2)
>  now confirms, the vote on the rule was the vote
> that made it
> happen. As the AP said: â?oIn a highly unusual
> maneuver, House Democratic  leaders
> crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file
> to oppose  money for the
> war, then step aside so Republicans could advance
> it.�  Nauseating.
> In the Senate, we saw lots of promises and tough
> talk from senators  telling
> us they were going to do everything they could to
> stop the blank  check. Some
> of them bragged that they were going to vote against
> the bill  - as if that
> was the ultimate sign of heroics. Then, _not  a
> single senator found the
> backbone to stand up to filibuster_
>
(http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/mr_smith_if_you_are_there_your.html)
>  the bill  a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. To
> quote the Big Lebowski, â?oThese men  are
> cowards,� because apparently, Senate
> club etiquette comes even before  the lives of our
> troops.
> The blank check _sailed  through the upper chamber
> on a vote of 80-14_
>
(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congres
> s=110&session=1&vote=00181)  with 38 Democrats (the
> majority of the party)
> voting yes. In all, at a time when 82 percent of
> Americans tell pollsters they
> want Congress to either approve funds for  the war
> with strict conditions or
> cut off all funding immediately, 90  percent of
> House and Senate Democrats
> combined voted to give George W.  Bush a blank
> check.
> The worst part of it all was the overt efforts to
> deceive the public -  as if
> weâ?Tre all just a bunch of morons. House Democrats
> have the nerve to
> _continue  to insist_
>
(http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/madame_chairwoman_you_are_very.html)
>  the blank check they helped ram through the House
> was all  the
> Republicans doing, and that a sham vote on a GOP
> amendment today -  which
> most Democrats opposed for show - was the real vote
> for the war.  But, again, as
> the AP reported, it was their parliamentary motion -
> passed  so quickly and
> under the devious pretenses of mundane procedural
> necessity  - that showed their
> calculated complicity. Now, tonight, the Democratic
> Congressional Campaign
> Committee is actually _sending out  fundraising
> emails_
> (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/24/22420/8047)
>  claiming â?othe House just passed legislation
> that  will go to the White House that includes
> critical issues Democrats have
> been fighting for including canceling the
> Presidentâ?Ts blank check in  Iraq.â?
> Beyond nauseating.
> Iâ?Tm not a purist nor am I a â?opox on both their
> houses� kind of guy. I  have
> worked to elect Democratic politicians and _I
> supported Democratic leaders_
>
(http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/03/21/a-memo-to-the-progressive-caucus-on
> -the-eve-of-the-iraq-vote/)  when they pushed an
> Iraq funding bill  that
> included binding language to end the war. But what
> happened today was  perhaps the
> most stunning travesty Iâ?Tve seen in a decade
> working in  Democratic politics.
> A Democratic Party that six months ago was elected
> on  a promise to end the
> war first tried to hide their complicity in
> continuing the war in the House,
> and then gave a few token speeches as the  blank
> check sailed through the
> Senate club. And it all happened, as the _New  York
> Times_
>
(http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/24/dem_leadership)
>  reported today,
> because these Democrats believed criticism  from
> President Bush - the man who
> _polls show is  the most unpopular president in
> three decades_
>
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/)
>  - â?oseemed more  politically
> threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew
> they would  draw from the left.�
> Democratic politicians, Capitol Hill staff,
> political consultants and  all
> their lobbyist friends sitting comfortably tonight
> in their Northwest
> Washington homes believe the public thinks Democrats
> are â?oweakâ? because  they donâ?Tt
> more strongly support leaving American troops to be
> killed or  maimed in the
> middle of a bloody civil war in a country half way
> around  the globe that had no
> WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11. What they seem
> unable - or unwilling -
> to realize is that the public has believed
> Democrats are weak not because some
> in the party have opposed the war, but  because many
> in the party refuse to
> wield the power the public entrusts  them with on
> all sorts of issues. At least
> on Iraq - the biggest issue of  the day - the
> publicâ?Ts perception has proven
> right. As I wrote to one  congressional lawmaker in
> an e-mail correspondence
> we had today: â?oThe  spoils go to those who use the
> power they are entrusted
> with, while infamy  goes to those who squander
> it.�
> In the movie â?oSay Anything,â? John Cusack
> famously laments after being
> dumped that â?oI gave her my heart, she gave me a
> pen.� The American people  gave
> Democrats their heart in November 2006. In return,
> Democrats gave  George Bush a
> blank check in May 2007. We gave them our heart,
> they gave  him a blank
> check. That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day
> generations to  come will look back
> on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only
> continued a war they promised
> to end, but happily went on record declaring  that
> they believe in their
> hearts that governmentâ?Ts role is to ignore the
> will of the American people.
> David Sirota is the author of the book _Hostile
> Takeover_
>
(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307237346?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeAS
> IN=0307237346&adid=0FHVNGWXGZSQMR0V6WND&) . To
> subscribe to Sirotaâ?Ts regular
> newsletter, go to _www.davidsirota.com_
> (http://www.davidsirota.com/)  and
> sign up on the left hand  side.
> © 2007 David  Sirota
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's
> free
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>


_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net