How About Congress Gives Bush Until April 1 2008?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:27:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via KagroX, some are saying September is the key month on Iraq:

"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."

Via Talex, Obama agrees:

Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday launched a public campaign to win enough votes to override a presidential veto of a troop withdrawal from Iraq. . . . Obama said he believed a phased troop withdrawal could be pushed through Congress this fall if the public applies enough pressure on Republicans over the summer. . . . "I think by the fall, if there's been concerted pressure over the summer (it could happen)," he said. "

Well, I don't. But take your best shot Senator. In the meantime, if you do not get that veto-proof majority in September, will you THEN commit to NOT funding the Debacle after April 1, 2008? That's 11 months from now. Surely the Surge, and the "ratcheting up the pressure" and all the excuses for not doing what has to be done to end the Debacle will have been proven duds by then if September is not the month that means something? Will you, Senator Obama, commit to NOT funding the war after April 1, 2008?

< Rudy Donated To Planned Parenthood | Infant Mortality Soars in Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How About Congress Gives Bush Until April 1 2008? | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

2008?...Dream on (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:41:39 AM EST

The USO will be performing on Iraqi soil in 2010, 2020, and beyond. We're not leaving that oil unattended ever.

I am beginnig (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:54:36 AM EST

to believe that the benchmarks for bringing the Troops home are not meant for Iraqis but Blackwater instead.

It may not be politically acceptable or desirable to keep our troops there forever, but our presence will certainly be felt and it will come at taxpayers expense until the oil and gas are all gone. You are correct about that, Kdog.


Well (none / 0) (#4)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:46:21 AM EST

Just as in other countries we will maintain an Embassy in Iraq. Given the the terrible position we have put ourselves in with a large swath of the population there by invading and occupying we will need a more than normal size force to protect that embassy. That is just common sense like it or not.

As for the oil - there is no question we are there for the oil. Now the question is to protect it or to not protect it. To not protect it would be to put current and future Iraqi oil supplies at jeopardy. To put it in jeopardy and disrupt it's supply further would probably mean gasoline in the $6 to $8 dollar range minimum given how much oil Iraq has.

Also to not protect it would mean another country may go into protect it. Russia nd China would be two likely candidates. Given that energy is everything to us and that ample alternative sources are decades away one must ask if allowing Russia and China to control that oil be wise?

Just things to think about.


"alternative sources are decades away" (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:58:25 AM EST

Given that we waste energy hand over fist, at a rate that is disgraceful; given that the oil lobby has bribed many a politician in the last hundred years so we DON'T develop ample alternative energy....how can you claim that statement as even half serious?

In one day, Americans waste enough to fill our genuine NEEDS for many days. We all know that, and almost all of us do nothing about it. Because that is our very culture -- consume, consume, consume, waste, waste, waste, use, use use...

If we are decades away, it is only because we have chosen to be. A clear and unambiguous choice. Which we can unmake at any time. It's up to us. Period.


Ha (none / 0) (#14)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:18:41 PM EST

Partly for the exact reasons you just gave.

Why ask a question of me when you had part of the answer all along?


Eh??? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:35:38 PM EST

You made the statement and it read purely technological in nature. I didn't get any sense you had conservation in mind as a major area of relief. And if you do view conservation as a major component, then why would decades have anything to do with it? If you think we CAN'T conserve as we should in a timely fashion, that Americans just aren't capable of such major victories when needed, that our better bet is to keep war alive in Iraq, then say so. Saying we have to in order to keep China or Russia out makes sense, sure, but you're really saying stay there because we can't possibly do better in a reasonable amount of time. Yes, I think we waste like mad, I think consumer culture is committing suicide, but I also think that odd freedom thing about America is still capable of showing us a better way and doing so in a hurry when required.

I guess, thinking about it, you're more cynical than I am about the American public. I'm skeptical, no cynical. I may get angry as hell, or depressed as sh*t about the political divide and what I perceive as my fellow American's failings, as well as my own, but I still have faith in our survival instinct and in the freedom we have to invent and think and change. It's getting late, but it can be done.


: I Conserve (none / 0) (#30)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:28:19 PM EST

I drive a small vehicle. I make less trips to the store. I keep lights tuned off at home. But on the way to the store there are far more giant SUV's on the road with one person in them than there are small cars.
As for alternative source I say decades because it will take decades to develop and incorporate into the infrastructure.

dadler (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:03:29 PM EST

Guess the oil lobby kept us from developing nuclear power.

Uh huh. Sure.

Repeat after me:

Envrionmental Wackos.


: And don't pin your hopes on Ethanol... (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:09:23 PM EST

Ethanol is widely touted as an eco-friendly, clean-burning fuel. But if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations likely would increase, according to a new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson. His findings are published in the April 18 online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T)
If you want to debate, let's go to the open post.

Iraq should, and will, protect their own oil (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by fairleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:18:38 PM EST

they had no problem doing so under decades of Saddam. So, that is another alternative: a sovereign Iraq, deciding by itself what to do with its oil. What they will very likely do is sell it to the highest bidder.


Make Bush's Case Why Don't You (none / 0) (#15)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:24:45 PM EST

They can't protect it all by themselves now - so when?

Are you saying that we should stay there until they can? That is what Bush wants.

As for selling it to the highest bidder - in general oil sells at or below world market rates regardless who it is sold to. We have not yet reached the point where supplies are so low that people are bidding for it at auction. But some day we will if we don't move on alternative sources.


_They_ can, they and us can't (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by fairleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:56:24 PM EST

As long as the U.S. occupies Iraq for the purpose (you have stated) of controlling Iraq's oil, Iraq's oil will be insecure. As long as the purpose of "a secure oil supply" is to supply excess profits for U.S. based oil companies, there will be effective resistance to a secure oil supply. When the U.S. leaves, Iraq will be able to secure its oil, because then (nearly) all Iraqis will be in favor of a secure oil supply to fund a prosperous Iraq.


I Don't Disagree (none / 0) (#25)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:14:29 PM EST

with a couple of your points. But I will say that either way us protect or us not protect the oil it will be under attack. Just as there was a recent plot to blowup Saudi oil fields.

And yes you are right. "Nearly" all Iraqis would want that. It is the ones who don't who are the problem.

I don't get how you think the Iraqis can protect their oil 'right now' when we with a trained army, technology, and air power cannot.


iraqi oil did not need protecting (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:24:12 PM EST

until the u.s. occupied the country with the endgoal of stealing it. it is from iraqis that the u.s. is "protecting" the oil. who do you think is sabotaging pipelines?


Yeah Exactly (none / 0) (#31)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:30:25 PM EST

so what's your point?


my point is (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:54:44 PM EST

that is we stop trying to steal the iraqi's oil, they will stop trying to keep us from stealing it. you may say protect, i think the real word is steal.


Saying Stealing (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:11:18 PM EST

does not make it so.

Again - stealing is not paying for something. We are not doing that.

By saying that you sound like some irrational wacko.


It is much more complex than that (none / 0) (#43)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:39:26 PM EST

It is not about the buying and selling of oil. It is about oil profits. The Iraqi oil reserves can play a huge role on the oil markets. Saddam got in much more trouble for increasing the world supply (lowering prices - lowering profits) than for withholding oil from the market.

So, the argument over whether it is stealing or protecting is irrelevant. What the oil companies and cartels want is control over Iraqi oil so the prices can remain stable and in a reasonable range. Deals have been worked out with other exporting countries keeping the profits in as few hands as possible. Saddam was a thorn in the side of those who work these deals (The Saudis - Princes and Kings - and the Bushies - Fathers and sons - among them) and could single handedly void these deals by flooding the markets with Iraqi Oil. His invasion of Kuwait and threatening of SA was unacceptable for the uncertainty that would result if more oil was in hands. Iran and Chavez certainly poses a similar threat to these backroom deals. WE have heard the allegations against Iran and when we begin to here charges that Chavez is behind terrorist acts and is attempting to develop WMD's we can expect another occupation to begin soon. For all practical purposes, stealing is fairly benign description for this exploitation of a countries resources benefiting a few at the expense of the many and for the many casualties of War that inevitably result.


no disagreement here (none / 0) (#51)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:03:56 PM EST

i would also include african countries nigeria, somalia, ethiopia, and eritrea in this list. the global war on terror/oil grab is already playing out there.

a good overview of the african outposts.


Why does that link look familair (none / 0) (#52)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:08:37 PM EST

Billmon?


: after billmon closed down comments (none / 0) (#54)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:10:47 PM EST

this is where many of his readers continued to comment on his posts. even though he has stopped writing, they carry on. one regular, b real, has been researching africa diligently for some time. his posts are well worth reading.

ad homs again? (none / 0) (#55)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:12:44 PM EST

if you do not scratch the surface to find what is beneath the rhetoric you may come to that conclusion. if you take a minute and read and research you will find otherwise.


: ad homs again?????? (none / 0) (#57)
by talex on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:27:27 PM EST

How about you trying to say I was a neocon??? That's OK but suggesting that your theory that protecting is stealing is wacko is an ad homs?
You guys here are too much.

Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:43:21 PM EST

A Sovereign Iraq selling its own oil is the panacea. But it won't happen.

they had no problem doing so under decades of Saddam

And look what happened to Saddam.


Look what is happening to the U.S. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by fairleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:59:18 PM EST

The alternative to Iraqi sovereignty is chaos and many dead Iraqis and occupiers. The British learned this many decades and accomodated reality and soveriegnty in order to get the best deal they could for Iraqi oil. The U.S. had known this for decades too, until the neocons unlearned it. Sensible policy will return, eventually, unless those who prefer the present situation continuing indefinitely have more political power than I think.


Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#39)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:55:22 PM EST

about the alternative. I am justing pointing out the obvious. All oil exporting countries suffer under some sort of tyranny or exploitation, except, perhaps, Venezuela. And, Chavez's salvation has been our current occupation of Iraq.

I hope there is a return to sensible policy, but as long as there is a concentration of wealth in so few hands, I am afraid that we will see a long involvement with Iraq and around the world under the auspices of what the rest of the World knows as American Imperialism.

So, I would say evidence demonstrates that concentrated Wealth has much more power than you will admit and the power of democracy much less.


Evidence in support of your point: NY Times (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:58:21 PM EST

article [Sunday?] about oil fields off the coast of Southern Cambodia. No assurance any of the benefit will ever flow to the people who work so hard for so little in Cambodia. Sad.


'some sort of tyranny' is very general (none / 0) (#49)
by fairleft on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:36:50 PM EST

and maybe your right at that very general level.

But many oil-producing countries are sovereign, in other words they control their oil for the benefit of national interests. Venezuela, Malaysia, Libya, Russia and Iran are definite and prime examples. Of course we don't know the degree of 'imperial' control/influence in most countries, but I think countries like Mexico, Indonesia, and many of the central Asian countries are further examples of more or less sovereign nations controlling their resources for in-country capitalists or even in part for the 'people'.

Anyway, I wasn't writing about 'democracy' and/or 'people power', I was writing about sovereignty. I love it but in the third world democracy often is too weak, too corruptible by imperial interests.


I think I understand (none / 0) (#50)
by Peaches on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:58:10 PM EST

what you are saying, now. It is not the exploitation or even the tyranny, you object to, but rather the US occupation of Iraq.

I think it will be arranged for a sovereign government to control Iraq. I also think this sovereign government will be under the influence of our policies that exploit Iraqi Oil resources for our benefit for many years to come. The average Iraqi will continue to suffer under this agreement a sovereign gov't has made with the imperial interests, but probably not as much so as they are currently suffering under our present occupation.

I think that could be considered an improvement.


: I agree. It's unclear what will happen (none / 0) (#60)
by fairleft on Wed May 09, 2007 at 01:18:16 PM EST

but most govts in Iraq's situation -- ones with some fight in them and some resources they can make hard to get -- usually play a balancing act between internal and external interests, not completely satisfying either. But the craven subservience -- everything for the international oil and arms companies and nothing for Iraq -- demanded by present policy will have to be a thing of the past for the country to have some kind of peace.

"protect" it? (none / 0) (#27)
by conchita on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:20:52 PM EST

talex, you seem to condone that we have occupied iraq for its oil. "protect" is like doublespeak for steal. the oil in iraq is not ours unless we buy it from the iraqis. are you that deep into achieving the veto majority that you are beginning to think like the neocons? next thing i expect you will be saying that the hydrocarbon law is all about the iraqis sharing