So Kucinich's Present vote - Good idea or bad idea?

[bryant69]

I know what I think of Kucinich's vote of Present (i.e. not voting yea or nay), but what do you think?

Edited to clarify - this is referring to the veto override vote held May 2, 2007. Kucinch voted Present, as noted above.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[xultar]

1. Only bad if he was the lone hold out that prevented the override.

[NoPasaran]

2. It wasn't a vote to override

So fuck him.

[Paulie]

3. Over ride to PAY FOR THIS WAR FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS?

Bat squeeze.

[bigtree]

8. the bill funds a withdrawal

It's just not the withdrawal funding bill that Kucinich supported.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Good principle; bad practical - which is why I don't want him to be President.

*Wonderful* principles though.

[ashling]

12. Can I change my vote to your answer?

[BlooInBloo]

19. :)

[bigtree]

5. we finally confronted Bush at his desk. Kucinich apparently think that's unimportant

Kucinich's 'present' vote was as inconsequential as all of the rest of his actions in the majority.

[meldroc]

6. It was a good statement.

The bill was not going to make the veto override vote, so Kucinich's single vote wouldn't have made a difference. So he elected to use that vote to say "I don't like this bill, because it doesn't go far enough in stopping the war." Certainly a valid statement. Ideally, Congress would elect to completely defund the war, then only provide just enough money, very specifically required to be used to redeploy the troops and equipment back to the U.S. in a safe, orderly, well-defended manner.

[TahitiNut]

7. Kucinich favors immediate withdrawal and always has, afaik.

I support that, too. Every day we occupy Iraq is a war crime, imho. Kucinich would certainly vote 'Yea' of there was any chance of pulling the troops out. As it was, he voted 'Present' to underline his position that he's opposed to the continued funding of the occupation.

[B Calm]

9. How many of those yea agreed to sign on to the Impeachment of Cheney?

[bryant69]

11. Your point being?

Bryant

[libnnc]

10. Given his position, I don't know what else he could have done.

I don't like it.

But how do you campaign on stopping funding and vote to fund (even though the bill includes a timetable for withdrawal)?

[slipslidingaway]

13. Is Kucinich right or wrong on the hydrocarbon act???

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=63687

"Kucinich Statement on the Iraq Supplemental Conference Report HR 1591

Washington, Apr 25 - WASHINGTON, DC — Following passage of the supplemental conference report this evening, Congressman Dennis Kucinich released the following statement:

This “Supplemental” is a plan to extort Iraq’s oil wealth under the guise of a plan to end the war. Funds for the security of the Iraqi government are contingent upon Iraq giving up control of oil. This legislation is a repugnant, high pressure tactic to force Iraq to pass a “hydrocarbon act” which will effectively privatize the oil wealth of Iraq. The key deception is that the hydrocarbon act, which sounds like an environmental law, lets Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds “share” whatever is left after US oil companies take unconscionable profits. This bill is not a plan for peace. It is blood for oil. It is a guarantee of more war and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq."


Who Will Control Iraq's Oil?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/27/who_will_control_iraqs_oil.php

"Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.

Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy..."

[bryant69]

14. I'm not sure I get your point ?

Bryant

[slipslidingaway]

15. Kucinich said he also opposed this bill because of a benchmark

relating to the passage of the hydrocarbon act.

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...

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..."


Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/nyt-whose-oil-is-it-anyway/

" new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament this month would, if passed, go a long way toward helping the oil companies achieve their goal. The Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more.
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries ‘’to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.'’ One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency..."


Democrats and the Iraqi Oil Law

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/democrats-and-the-iraqi-o_b_47237.html

"No blood for oil!" was a rallying cry against the Bush administration's war against Iraq. Now it can be more properly applied to the Democrat-controlled Congress that is drenching its hands in blood for precisely the same thing. This detail is obscured by public pronouncements that treat Iraq's so-called "Hyrdocarbon Law" as if it were an article of religious faith instead of a bald-faced attempt by the US government (Republicans and Democrats alike) to secure unfettered access to Iraq's fossil energy by Big Oil..."


George Bush’s Land Mine:
If the Iraqi People Get Revenue Sharing, They Lose Their Oil to Exxon

by Richard Behan

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/201/

[bryant69]

16. Oh - thank you for clarifying.

Bryant

[slipslidingaway]

22. YW and if Kucinich and others are right about the hydrocarbon

law then the people of Iraq will not pleased with us once again. So in your poll I voted that his vote was correct. Do you think the Democrats should support this new oil law if the interpretations in these articles are correct?


The New Oil Law Will Increase Violence in Iraq

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-oil-law-will-increase-violence-in.html

"3- Financial losses: In addition to the main points mentioned above, Iraq will lose hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign oil companies during the next 35 years ecause the law doesn't give any preferences to local companies and due to the unconventional type of contracting this law legalizes called the Production sharing agreements (PSA) or the exploration and production agreements. Iraqi leaders in general, separatists or nationalists, don’t mind dealing with foreign companies, but many Iraqis are against singing unfair long-term contracts with foreign or local companies. According to the new oil law, the foreign oil companies will have exclusive rights to produce oil from certain fields. They do not have to do any work during the first 10 years, which is called the “exploration period” in the law. This 10 year period is very convenient for foreign oil companies so that they won’t do any work while Iraq is violent and unstable, but they’ll make sure that no one else will produce the Iraqi oil for the next 10 years. When foreign oil companies think the time is appropriate to start working, they can produce oil for up to 25 years with huge profits because they own a certain percent of the oil. Other oil-rich Middle Eastern countries never use these types of contracting. Instead, they just hire foreign companies under technical services agreements (TSA) that doesn’t privatize the oil and gives a flat reasonable rate to foreign companies."

[slipslidingaway]

23. I just watched the video posted here which says the same

thing as many articles posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=25967&mesg_id=25967

[bigwillq]

17. Good idea

He's holding his ground and being consistent, which I admire.....he didn't support the bill so why would he vote to override? And of course he wouldn't vote NO to the override so I think voting present makes sense for him.

[MOD]

18. When DK has the chance to put his money where his mouth is,

he chokes. How can anyone have any respect for his calls to leave Iraq if he won't even vote for it?

[bigwillq]

20. He voted against the Funding Bill

Because he wants our troops out NOW! Not in 6 months, not in a year, NOW!


At least someone has the balls to say that and support it.

[dave_p]

21. It was appropriate

Kucinich doesn't approve continued war funding, so why should he vote for it?

People voting for things they now claim they didn't particularly agree with is what got us all into this mess.

Kucinich has proposed an alternative, to stop additional war funding now and to start withdrawal immediately.

People may disagree with that, but critcizing him for not voting against his own principles seems odd.

I do think there's a time for accepting a partial win, and I might have voted differently. But it was his call.