To author of Bush Agenda: Why are Dems silent on oil motive for Iraq War?

[yurbud]

Antonia Juhasz wrote a great book documenting the oil theft motive for the Iraq War, but she wasn't the first.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/04/on-iraq-bush-agenda-invading-world-one.html

No matter what kind of evidence on this comes out though, not only won't the mainstream media talk about it, but Democrats won't touch it except in the most oblique passing way, very similar to how Vaclav Havel gingerly criticized the communists in his plays before the revolution.

What the hell is their problem?

I thought Juhasz might know:

You, Greg Palast, and a handful of others have amply documented the oil, privatization, and general looting motive of the Bush administration, but almost all Democrats have remained silent on this, sometimes going as far as Cindy Sheehan to ask "what noble cause" our troops are dying for, but at other times since debunking the WMD & terrorism embarrassingly hollow & childish lies, they will say they don't know why we invaded Iraq. Even some progressive media personalities like Al Franken and Ed Schultz do this shtick. I don't think those two are stupid, and however corrupt and self-serving many members of Congress may be, they lived through the Cold War, so they know full well even WITH nukes, Saddam would never attack us because we have enough ourselves to wipe them off the map in retaliation. They also cannot be blind to the influence the oil industry has had on the history of our foreign policy.

That said, why aren't the DEMOCRATS saying what you are saying, out loud, up front, and at every opportunity? Are they hoping to curry the favor of the oil industry or are they just that deathly afraid of the Republicans and their patrons?

Some Democrats make encouraging noises about pulling out of Iraq, but to the degree that they don't draw attention to the real motives for the Bushies to go in, which were never intended to benefit the American people as a whole, it's hard to believe the Democrats are sincere about trying to end the war.

Since you worked in Congress, I figured you might have an inside angle on this too.

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Who can figure out the

Democratic "leadership" anymore?

[Totally Committed]

2. Because most Democrats have no balls. Period.

No guts, no will, no courage, no integrity.

Only a precious few have what it takes, and they are left hanging out there to dry, rwisting inthe wind if they express such truths. Why should they even bother?

TC

[yurbud]

3. I think it can be summed up with two names: Lieberman & Wellstone

bought & knocked off.

If they aren't one, they risk becoming the other.

[StClone]

4. It is common knowledge

That controlling oil reserves is a driving force of much (all?) of our warring. Without oil jets don't fly, tanks don't roll and munition factories don't operate -- a vicious circle. Did I mention oil creates massive wealth too?

[kenny blankenship]

5. The oil motive is bigger than either party-foreign policy always

the plaything of elites.

...and with events having already been set in motion to establish a military stranglehold over the middle east, even the party that didn't start the (now wildly unpopular) war is leery of questioning the fundamental assumptions and goals behind the war. To scratch at this itch would dig too deeply and cost the support of the Big Money parties need to win elections.
They hope to benefit from the disenchantment with the war, but there is little appetite for ending it or exposing why it really started

[yurbud]

7. tell just enough of the truth and do just enough to win. Then hope...

everybody goes back to sleep. I know Clinton supported the neoliberal shit too, but when it gets to the point of open pillaging like Iraq, it's going to have domestic implications too.

[yurbud]

8. foreign policy: elite play, we pay. Can't we at least charge oil corps

a user fee for our military?

[yurbud]

6. I bought the geopolitical motive until I read about China just BUYING

long term contracts with Iran and the tar sands of Canada.

It's not about access to keep our economy going. It's about who profits and who sets the price.

No one who had control of that oil would cut off an addict who bought 25% of the world supply of their product, nor would they set the price so high that alternatives would start to look good to even the reddest of rednecks.


Read read Greg Palast's recent columns:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/03/bbcs-greg-palast-iraq-war-to-cap-oil.html


and confirmation in the DSM:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/04/new-dsm-bush-told-putin-iraq-war.html


Greg Palast's timeline of Iraq oil meeings (with video interviews with the players):

http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

Detailed report on restructuring of Iraq's oil industry to benefit our oil companies:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Colin Powell's chief of staff on oil motive for Iraq War:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/11/powell-aide-says-war-about-oil-so-we.html

Broader background on oil, war, and foreign policy:
http://www.mymethow.com/~joereid/oil_coup.html

Naomi Klein on privatization and its effects in Iraq:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html


Economic war crimes in Geneva and Hague Conventions:

The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument

The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument