A problem with Boxer (& other dems) on Iraq

[yurbud]

Barbara Boxer's PAC sent me something about a petition to sign about demanding a withdrawal and "success" plan for Iraq.

For some reason, this one little line made me hopeful that she would be straight with us about the causes for war:

After two and a half years of war, the American people are still waiting to hear the truth about what our mission is in Iraq and how we are going to accomplish it.

I thought that meant she was going to TELL us, so I scoured the rest of the email looking for it, and instead, the closest I found was this:

I believe our mission in Iraq is this: Security for Iraqis provided by Iraqis. We need to hear from the Administration exactly how many Iraqi forces are needed; how to meet that goal; and by when. And the current pace will not cut it.

We have no idea -- none -- how long the Administration plans to be in Iraq. Is it two years, ten, twenty? The President's message of "as long as it takes" is counterproductive. It is time for President Bush to send a clear message that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely or maintain permanent bases there.

I don't know about you, but it is hard to trust the Democrats when they continue to talk to us like fucking idiots.


Until the Democrats flatly explain that the neocons wanted to control Iraq's oil and have a base to control through intimidation and invasion the other oil producing countries of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea Basin, and that they repudiate this, I am forced to assume that they agree with this plan, and like Kerry said, they are quibbling about how they are doing it.

If this piece of the puzzle isn't brought into the debate, we aren't being told the truth and therefore cannot make make informed decisions.

Any talk about "permanent bases" will make no sense to the general public without telling them why the Bushies want those bases, which has been pretty well laid out by the neocons, and covered by precious few reporters.


The most notable exception is Greg Palast who put together this timeline with links to the primary documents and interviews with the primary players:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked with the neocons in the Pentagon summed their goals for the war as these:

• more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and
  
  
• better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms.
  
  
• Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and
  
  
• fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0310-09.htm

Jay Garner, first American ruler of Iraq (on film with Greg Palast):

General Garner:I think we should look right now at Iraq as our coaling station in the Middle East, where we have some presence there and it gives a settling effect there, and it also gives us a strategic advantage there...

Washington wanted Garner to impose a privatization plan of everything including OIL and put off elections to make that possible. He disagreed and was fired. Here's his thoughts on the effects of the Bush economic plan for Iraq:

General Garner: In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to go up north and convince the Kurds that all the... they had to be privatised. Now you can convince the Kurds that they don't own the oil fields, but the privatisation? I don't think you can do it, and that's just one fight that you don't have to take on right now...I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with.

Grover Norquist, key GOP strategist and one of the author's of the privatization plan made their priorities for Iraq crystal clear:

"The right to trade, property rights, these things are not to be determined by some democratic election."

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=319&row=1

From the PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses:
September 2000

Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam
pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region (17).

STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Report of an Independent Task Force early 2001

Sponsored by the
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University
and theCouncil on Foreign Relations
(note:James Baker is a Bush family servant and former Sec. of State)

Sadly, the Bushies ignored this one bit of advice from the forward:

For many decades now, the United States has been without an energy policy. Now, the consequences of not having an energy policy that can satisfy our energy requirements on a sustainable basis have revealed themselves in California. Now, there could be more Californias in America’s future. President George W. Bush and his administration need to tell these agonizing truths to the American people and thereby lay the basis for a new and viable U.S. energy policy.


******

For the most part, U.S. international oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets. The United States has forged a special relationship with certain key Middle East exporters, which had an expressed interest in stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation...

But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with U.S. strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. A trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ ability to cooperate with the United States in the energy area.

The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm
********

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[merwin]

1. I think that IS what our mission is in Iraq.

It's not the reasons for going to war, but it is our current mission. We want Iraqi's to be able to protect themselves from the hellhole that Bush created.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Sort of like asking the bank robbers to provide security for the bank.

Or the rapist to comfort the victim.

A bunch of "our" guys shooting up their country isn't "helping" the Iraqis.

[yurbud]

5. "We need to make sure everyone keeps their hand up while the janitor...

mops up the blood."

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Tigress DEM]

14. No it's more like giving the family of the victim weapons to protect...

their family from the "bad guys" only the bad guys are the ones handing over the weapons with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. "See, we really helped you out."

Thing is, so many terrorists have come into the loose borders that even when we leave, the Iraqis will have to defend themselves against other elements we are responsible for attracting with our free for all war on the place.

[yurbud]

23. do you think they didn't have police and an army before we invaded?

Do you think we have to teach them how to wipe their ass too?

These are people.

Things will be messy if we go, but they will be grateful that it's their mess, just like we enjoy having our mess to ourselves.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[FreedomAngel82]

25. This is why

you need help from the other countries. Earlier this year John Kerry did a middle eastern tour as a member of the foreign relation's committe. He talked to various leaders in the mid east and they were all ready to send in troops to help but yet Bush was NOT going on their offer. If John Kerry was president we would do things a lot faster and get help and pull out ASAP and get rid of a lot of the military bases. There's no sense in having fourteen-twenty three of them.

[yurbud]

29. unless you want the oil--and I've looked through Kerry's stuff to find

a mention of it and didn't see one.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

4. that is an excuse to stay. Tell people why we went then let them decide

I don't think Boxer is on board with that hegemony thing, but if not, tell us.

Putting things this way is only better than the Bushies when you grade on a curve.



Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Tigress DEM]

15. Do BOTH. Then WE can make a big stink all over the air waves...

about how even REASONABLE, BI-Partisan attempts to end a war in a practical manner are REJECTED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.... leading US once again into the topics of:

"If they really want to help the Iraqis, then why reject solid recommendations?"

"Could it be that the intent was NEVER to HELP the Iraqi's?"

"Why is B*** set on staying? Could it be the oil?"

The funny thing is they use these tactics of innuendo successfully on DEMs, but in this case the innuendos are simply pointing to the TRUTH which can be verified.

[yurbud]

18. Tell the Dems the Iraqis want us out NOW (see GRAPHICS & LINKS)

The Coalition Provisional Authority did a poll of Iraqis on a number of questions and one was whether they view us as liberators or occupiers.

The results were pretty grim:




LINK TO POLL DATA: http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpapoll_files/frame.htm

A Gallup poll done around the same time was only slightly more supportive of us staying.

The only poll that has shown anywhere near majority support for us being there was from a right wing think tank, that has a vested interest in making this Neocon adventure look good.

The argument that we are fighting terrorists there instead of here assumes there's a set number of people who are mad at us, and we can eventually kill enough of them to make the problem go away.

The problem is, at the base of all of it, is a resentment of our involvement in propping up their dictators, who don't share the oil wealth with their own people. All this gets channeled into religion because they have no effective political outlets in most countries over there. So by intervening militarily, we are making more not less people resent and want to attack us.

Polls of reaction in other Arab countries to our invasion of Iraq confirm this. A Zogby poll in 2003 found that 90% disapproved of our invasion
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030317-025106-3821r

Zogby's most recent poll of Arab countries shows MORE disapprove with 98% of Egyptians (our allies) disapproving.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7080-2004Jul22?language=printer

If you want to teach people democracy, you can't do it with a gun in their face.

Gorbachev accidentally showed us an easier way to do it. He told the dictators of Eastern Europe the Soviets couldn't afford to help them oppress their people anymore. Within a few years, those dictators were out of jobs, and those countries were more or less democracies.

And I don't think a single Russian soldier was killed.

Musharraf, Mubarak, the Saudis, various kings and generals, would all wither away and die without our money and help of our intelligence services. The results might be messy, but the people over there wouldn't blame us for it--they'd thank us.

Print this out, and send it to your congressman and senators and tell them to stop treating us and the Iraqis like fucking idiots.

They are there to steal the oil. Stop it. Don't use our tax dollars and soldiers lives to enrich a very, very few. Or we'll start wondering about how seriously they take democracy here.

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR & CONGRESSMAN:
http://capwiz.com/wa/dbq/officials/


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[FreedomAngel82]

26. That's a good idea

We want to work with everybody on getting out. I think that's true. Bush and his administration are being stubborn and aren't leaving until they get every drop of oil whether that takes a few years or twelve plus years.

[merwin]

30. No, it's not an excuse to stay.

You set a firm date at which point the US will leave Iraq. Force the Iraqi's to start building up their own defenses. If they choose not to do so and fall back into the old ways, so be it. At some point they need to take the training wheels off.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Yes

And you also have to remember that people consider PNAC to be "consperiacy theories". Just like with the last election problems. People just don't believe in it and people can easily cry "consperiacy!" and make you look uncrediable. I've talked to people about PNAC and they don't know what in the world I'm talking about. Most people in this country only believe what the news tells them. So if Greg Palast on BBC tells them it was for oil and nothing else then they would call him "anti-American" because it's not being reported on here and people don't get who owns the media hence why they liberal media myth. They couldn't possibly believe Bush would do such a thing since he proclaims to be a Christian (we all know that's a joke). This is why they don't talk about it. Now that we're there we have to show we have a plan to get out and leave and this is the plan I think. The only way we can prove it was for oil is if we're the majority again in 2006 and 2008 and can prove it and get the Bush administration.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. They're still nibbling around the edges instead of taking it head on.

Damned politicians can't even say 2+2=4 without checking the polls and loading it up with weasel words.

Out now! Get the hell out of the country and give it back to the owners.

[yurbud]

6. With the internet, they could create the groundswell to get this

in the debate if they want to, but they clearly don't.

If they don't want to, they aren't that eager to leave, only to gain some political advantage using those of us who do.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

7. somebody give me another rec, so this stays up a bit.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. You got it.

[Cocoa]

9. I think it's good she mentioned the bases

[bejammin075]

10. Seeing the same thing with Pelosi on TV

I saw Pelosi on TV ranting about Karl Rove, which Rove obviously deserves, but with all that time in front of the camera, there was not one mention of the MOTIVE of Rove, which was to coverup Bush's lies that lied us into Iraq.

It is my position that "winning" in Iraq requires confronting the Bush administration on thier lies, getting a resignation and/or impeachment, and then getting our shit together in Iraq.

And I agree with this post - the Dem leaders must be willing to plainly call the Bush admin exactly what they are: oil & war profiteers.

Also, it seems like Boxer's plan give's a lot of ammunition to the Repubs, whether or not legitamate, allows them to accuse dems of nitpicking, whining, setting an arbitrary time table, etc.

I think it would be much more productive to shout for some accountability: the lost $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$ in Iraq, how to make sure war profiteers aren't profiting at the expense of pay and armor for our troops, paying native Iraqi's to do their own reconstruction, and confronting the steaming pile of shit president who LIED US INTO IRAQ.

This Bush admin will fold sooo sooo sooo easily under just a little sustained and direct questioning. You can see them quaking in fear about the latest scandals.

[oxbow]

11. so write her back

tell her we won't support these half-assed plans until they start being plainspoken with us about the PNAC agenda. I'm off to do just that!

[yurbud]

16. Good. I know Greg Palast submitted his evidence on this to Conyers

the guy who should rightfully be the next president of the United States.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Cocoa]

12. face-saving might be necessary

of course, it will be an awful injustice that however this war ends, those truths that you mention will never be officially acknowledged.

However, for the purposes of ending this war, that might be necessary.

http://www.kucinich.us/archive/report/display.php?r=33&d=2005-05-17+15%3A48%3A33


A New Initiative to Get Out of Iraq
May 17, 2005 3:48 pm ET

It is time for a new initiative to get out of Iraq. One which does not engage in casting blame, or in fomenting recriminations. One which holds the return home of our troops as being both the logical conclusion of a mission, and the imperative which flows from new information concerning the mission.

It is time to reach out to Republicans and Democrats alike, no matter how they voted on the war, to have Congress legislate a date certain by which all US troops must be withdrawn from Iraq. We can and must create a new way to bring our brave men and women back home.

Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii and I are drafting legislation to set a time by which the US must be out of Iraq. We are carefully building a new coalition. We are planning on introducing the legislation next week.

We published an op ed piece in USA Today. I spoke of it on the House floor. Time for a new approach and a new beginning to the end of the war against Iraq.

[Tigress DEM]

13. (5 words one hyphen) Bi-Partisan Support for Leaving Iraq

Everybody's children are dying over there.

(Yes, DEMs at a higher rate because repukes can shield their kids better, bribe them easier etc... but just as there are moderate Republicans and Liberal Hawks, their are kids who look at the shit their parents are peddling and step up to the hypocrisy and join the military because at 18 or so they only hear the idealism of spreading Democracy.)

Everybody is watching the cost of the war rise like a tsunami.

No REAL American wants to be lied to or to have torture done in our name if they know about it, but there is SO MUCH we just DON'T know.

Still - POINTING OUT THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG is USUAlLY ENOUGH to get agreement to steer the boat off the collision course - without going into extensive detail about what "LIES Beneath." (Ha - pun initially unintended, but I like it.)

WE NEED HUGE SUPPORT to end this war and if the small pieces Barbara offers can appeal to the "Gee - we broke it we need to fix it" crowd and of course anyone sane enough to say, "Yeah, get the hell out of there now, yesterday, day before - better yet." Then we can actually get out.

Bushits are still in control. This exit strategy is a "FACE SAVING Strategy" because it gives them a way to leave Iraq without having to admit they are wrong. Still it will stop the death and destruction.

Every word these senators utter or put out is scrutinized up one side and down the other. I truly don't care how exactly it is said as long as we get our soldiers out of there without inflaming the situation more. If she says it this way to keep the right wing and moderates from dismissing her as someone "against US", then it's ok by me - as long as it works. It could. It really could.

Many bi-partisan conversations I have had begin with points of agreement, even though it leaves a lot left unsaid. But this is detente - eventually revealing more as the trust is built. So many out there have been spoon fed the media propaganda so long, that too much information too quick makes them mistrust the source. I know. It's frustrating.

There is still an assumption out there that some portion of this war was legitimate - it's a wrong assumption, but we can say, "Hey, even if it was at one point, if the plan is to get Iraqis in charge of their own lives, then B*** put your money where your mouth is, get your head out of your A** and make a real exit plan."

THIS WAY - WE THE PEOPLE and the DEMOCRATIC Officials are simply making a FULLY REASONABLE REQUEST as if to a spoiled child who hasn't quite grasped the delicate concept of "not everything is mine just because I say so".

It's like smiling at your two year old with your hand out for some disgusting thing they want to put in their mouth and saying, "Thank You" with a sweet voice so the kid gives it over to get your approval. It's a harmless tactic that can be used when the mental faculties of the person(s) you are dealing with aren't up to dealing with the truth.

So, on one front, we try the nice way and if that accomplishes our goal. Fine. If it doesn't we raise the bar, and we can say, "Hey, we tried this the easy way, but..."

We can be like the Republicans and have more than one front as well. If this is their easiest out, they might choose it. At this point the "out" is the most important.

We can spank them later. :spank:

Good Cop / Bad Cop. One group offers the plea bargain and the other the full prosecution the law allows... only oranges - no choice of two fruits, not even a fruit cup in prison these war criminals are heading toward.

[yurbud]

17. when you talk to people about oil, the argument stops--you've won

they know everything else besides that is like talking about Santa Claus.

We have oil execs and defense contractors in the White House and get a war in an oil country. Do you think these guys give a rat's ass about WMD, terrorists, democracy, or even our safety?

Do you think they suddenly grew a conscience and started caring about other human beings?

This soft sell, don't offend anyone shit is not working.

People are abandoning the GOP, but that isn't translating into support for Dems because people aren't hearing any coherent reason TO support them.

We have tried this the easy way and gotten raped, beaten, and shot in the head.

If we provide a face saving way for them to get out, they won't even say thank you. They'll come back later and finish us off, and next time they'll make fewer mistakes.

My greatest fear about this whole period of our history is that when it's over, the Dems will forgive and forget, like the wife of a wifebeater. And the beater will eventually get drunk and kill the whole family.

It's time to stop the bullshit.


These assholes could start World War 3, and the Dems are largely acting like they're niggling over the design of a postage stamp.

[Raksha]

20. You make some very good points, yurbud.

>>People are abandoning the GOP, but that isn't translating into support for Dems because people aren't hearing any coherent reason TO support them.

We have tried this the easy way and gotten raped, beaten, and shot in the head.

If we provide a face saving way for them to get out, they won't even say thank you. They'll come back later and finish us off, and next time they'll make fewer mistakes.<<

You are absolutely right about that. When I read that line, "If we provide a face saving way for them to get out, they won't even say thank you" I had an immediate flashback to the Vietnam era. It was us hippies and peaceniks and so-called "radicals" who were the first to stand up against the war and begin turning public opinion against it. Not only did they not thank us THEN, they haven't done it YET! They are still calling John Kerry a "traitor" for his anti-war activities. All except the actual Vietnam vets, who know very well what we did for them.

So I say screw them--let them call us whatever the hell they want (they will anyway), but let's offer America a clear choice.

[yurbud]

22. If Kerry '04 had been Kerry '71, he would have won in a landslide.

that is why the right feared, and still fears, Howard Dean.

He is not afraid to be blunt and call them the liars and con men they are.

An angry pacifist is tough to call a pansy, as is one who served in combat.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Raksha]

27. I KNOW THAT, and it drives me crazy!!!

"If Kerry '04 had been Kerry '71, he would have won in a landslide."

I still don't understand why he wasn't.

[yurbud]

28. triangulation. us and wall street.

In fairness, if he got as far as nomination, and it looked like a landslide coming, one of two bad things would have happened: he would have ended up dead, or we would have gotten a terrorist attack on or before the election.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

19. Here's a better way to get bipartisan support: tell GOP sink Bush, or

go down with him.

He will already be remembered as the worst president in American history.

The longer the GOP waits to admit he is a stain on our democracy who has soiled our reputation in the world, the more likely they are to be tarred with the same brush. Frankly, I hope they do hold onto him like an anchor so the whole bad lot goes with him.

But to get them out peacefully, you have to speak their language: blunt power. The people are on our side.

And I will say it again, if we don't deal with this problem properly and fully they will come back again, better prepared, more ferocious, and less likely to fail or use a petulant retard as their figurehead.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

21. Right will be inflamed no matter what/you win no allies with cowardice

If she says it this way to keep the right wing and moderates from dismissing her as someone "against US", then it's ok by me - as long as it works. It could. It really could

If you look at polls, moderates and the middle have already lost faith in Bush, but that doesn't translate to support for Dems. Who wants to entrust their country and lives to mealy mouthed cowards? Especially when taking their side will draw the wrath of wealthy psychopathic bully?

What inflames the far right about Democrats is effectiveness. They leave you alone when you aren't making an impact.

In this case, if enough democrats told the truth at once, they couldn't all have car accidents, plane crashes, or commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head with a shotgun twice.

The GOP can pound people like Dick Durbin down because when he stands up, he is essentially alone.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Disturbed]

31. I like Boxer but...

she is wrong on this issue. It really doesn't matter though because as long as the Bush Regime is in power the U.S. will stay in Iraq at some level of strength unles the Iraqis decide to unite on this one issue to kick the U.S. and UK out.