All Comments (161)

this took all of 2 seconds to find-

Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

June Caldwell
May 6, 2007

In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).

The clause that Iraq must privatize ownership of its oil was in the original Bill presented by Congress, although it was not mentioned publicly. It was stated as a benchmark to be met by Iraq, and if it was not met, the US would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. That means the Iraqis would not own their own oil, but instead International oil companies, primarily US oil companies, would instead divide ownership of the oil.

This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil. These same oil companies are still resolute about keeping the oil prices high at the pumps for US citizens (while refraining refinery capacity), so that they alone retain record-breaking profits. Kucinich explained he requested on the Congress floor that clause be removed from the Bill, and was finally assured it would be. He found it was not, and again demanded it be removed, and was then accused of ‘not being a loyal Democrat’.

Kucinich went on to explain that last November, the citizens of the US voted for a ‘change of direction in Iraq’ but as of yet have only gotten a bait and switch.

American Chronicle | California Chronicle | Los Angeles Chronicle

it is truly the strangest doublespeak-

cb- instead of addressing the immorality of the entire occupation to begin with-

you are trying to manipulate some already extant paranoia against iran?

so youre symapthetic to the fates of the kurds and the shia? (otherwise why would we be there? without that noble sympathetic response- our motives become quite questionable.)

arent the iranians shia?
arent the kurds of the PKK currently terrorizing the turkish muslim population?

so who constitutes the lightly veiled accusation of "enemy" to you?

all people are cookie cut-outs and clearly good or bad?

despite your revisinism cb- saddam was secualar-

this war has coalesced the 'al-qaeda' and terrorists who poured into iraq after our intervention-

not before.

whose good and whose bad in your opinion?

Volt Rare:

I forgot to mention that, yes, large companies directly profit from the war. And, yes, the war was pretty much a disaster. It was not well planned at all. About the only well-planned aspect was domestic propaganda.

And I totally agree that Saddam was not a threat. Actually the only threat was the United States government, and the victims are the Iraqi people, and the soldiers without limbs or with psychological or neurological injuries.

It was a terribly planned operation - all positions can agree on that.

Volt Rare:
"Which is it? Is the invasion of Iraq based upon moralistic grounds or is it based upon national interest? In both cases, evidence and reason clearly indicate that the invasion of Iraq was neither moral nor in the national interest.

the invasion of Iraq showed themselves to be closely allied with PNAC, Iran & its friend - Chalabi, Big Oil, military contractors/corporations, and misguided right-wing Likudniks, etc..."

---

The interests of the most powerful generally do not align with those of the middle class. But in this case the national interest - global economic competitiveness - may have been served. Control of oil supplies is a power that may give the United States somewhat greater control on the direction of the world economy. (This ignores the well-being of the middle and lower classes.)

1) Keep oil scarce,
2) Decrease domestic middle-class consumption of oil,
3) Maintain a greater amount of domestic manufacturing,
4) Hold an advantage in trade negotiations.

3) can happen because China's advantage of cheap labor depends somewhat on cheap energy and raw materials. If energy or raw materials become(s) expensive, cost of labor is less of a competitive factor. Other factors, such as infrastructure, transportation, and efficiency come into play.

I don't believe in "win win" situations in general. I just think that large industry is generally aligned with national economic competitiveness.

But that does not mean that national economic competitiveness is always or very directly correlated with the well-being of the middle class.

Anyway, I voted for the Dems. I don't want to be responsible for such mayhem. I am a (middle class) citizen of the world.

"Sometimes nations are fighting for the good of humanity and for civilization. Sometimes, the enemy is as evil as our leaders remind us they are. Sometimes, the self-interest of the nation is the interest of its neighbors. "
...
"The Middle East holds more dangers than the morally pretentious critics of the Bush Administration are willing to admit. It's far easier to complain of the violence in front of you than the violence that is to come if you do not act"

The moral argument claiming that the invasion of Iraq was for the sake of humanity and civillization, conflicts with the disparagement of even the concept of moralistic arguments made by the left.

Which is it? Is the invasion of Iraq based upon moralistic grounds or is it based upon national interest? In both cases, evidence and reason clearly indicate that the invasion of Iraq was neither moral nor in the national interest.

To compare Saddam's Iraq to Nazi Germany is intellectual duplicity, in terms of scale, and threat to the world. There is no way that Saddam's Iraq was a viable military threat to the world. It would be trying to equate an angry dog in a cage to a pack of lions running amok in a schoolyard.

The argument that invading Iraq was a humanitarian intervention is misinformed at best. More Iraqis have died and are dying today due to our "intervention" and the civil war fomented than if we had left Saddam contained.

The most influential proponents and profiteers of the invasion of Iraq showed themselves to be closely allied with PNAC, Iran & its friend - Chalabi, Big Oil, military contractors/corporations, and misguided right-wing Likudniks, etc...

"The truth about the Iraq war is different than you suppose.

It was not to obtain cheap oil. It was to continue to maintain high oil prices. It has been remarkably successful at that.

It is not too hard to follow if you think about it. Support for the sanctions was weakening. They were only held up by the fiction that Saddam had WMDs, and it was becoming clear even to those who paid attention in the US that he did not have them any more. (He destroyed the stocks that we sold to him.)

For this and various political reasons (Saddam gaming other countries with promises of oil reserves) the sanctions would expire. What would happen then? Iraq with the second or third largest reserves would be free to flood the market with oil.

Who would not like that? Well, Bush's other country Saudi Arabia for one. The entire White House staff for another (their day job was with the oil industry.)

So invading Iraq would either let us control the oil (keep it off the market) or be a huge disaster like it is now and keep the oil off the market. It was a slam dunk!"

EXACTLY! What better way to compete with the emerging, oil hungry, economies such as China? Control the oil supply, somehow.

I will say it again: major Chinese companies had contracts to do work on major Iraqi oil fields as soon as trade embargoes were lifted. That never happened, obviously.

There are economists, game theorists and other strategists considering these factors in the White House. To dismiss the effect of the most important energy source in the world is just insular.

CB,

But it is true that the US supported the conflict before, and that the invasion of Iraq has resulted in more sectarian violence that would have otherwise occurred.

I agree that Iraq is a troubled place, and that Saddam is a terrible person. But the record shows that the US has not been a moral force in Iraq. Now now, and not before. It would have been better for the people in that region if we would have never intervened.

Ben writes:
"And the US didn't support Saddam before the 1990s. And there wasn't less sectarian violence before the invasion of Iraq."

I know what you're thinking...easy target.

Is Ben aware of the sectarian efforts by Sunni Saddam to exterminate large portions of Kurds and Shias? The sectarian violence between Sunni controlled Iraq and Shia controlled Iran, the war that resulted on over 1,000,000 deaths? (Count the zeros again Ben, it's worth it.)

I'll be the first to agree that the US made some very stupid realpolitick mistakes by favoring Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, although in hindsight, it's clear that such favoritism was minimal at best, given Iraq's inability to deal with Iran's military forces.

However, the idea that Saddam could have been contained, or that he wouldn't (or wasn't) willing to deal with terror organizations, or that a U.S. pullout would somehow quell the internal violence are just extensions of that kind of realpolitick thinking.

Iraq has always been a very troubled place. Most dictatorships are. The U.S. and U.K. tried to change the country with the minimal focers and violence (compared to say the kind of military juggernaut approach of previous wars) and to balance geopolitical needs in a post 9-11 world with a domestic media and political establishment that values political victory over national interest.

The result is more Iraqis, Americans, and Brits dead than if the U.S. had simply taken a direct and comprehensive approach. I must admit that I was in agreement with the reduced forces approach, mainly because some in the military were cynically arguing for massive forces as a means to short-circuit intervention (because the forces needed would put a huge strain on the military due to personnel cutbacks) and perhaps the forces could have been better organized. Certainly our tactics in Anbar and elsewhere could have been more consistent. They are now under Gen. Petraus.

California Condor writes, in amongst the insincere Michael Mooresque boilerplate, that Mesopotamia will fall to Persian power. It will only be so if the US abandons Iraq and fails to cut off the Iranian influence that is helping to fuel some of the worst violence in Iraq. As always, Bush's critics fail to concentrate on the real mistakes in military and infrastructural tactics that the Administration has made, and leap, like rabid bats to the jugular, to blame Bush for the ambition of others, be they Iranian Shia radicals using Al-Sadr as a front for the domination of Iraq, Sunni insurgents angling for a return to Baathist rule or some tribal approximation, or Al-Queda, terrorizing Iraqis on a daily basis, murdering and maiming. Their hatred for Bush, whatever his flaws, blinds them from their real enemy, the forces of authoritarianism and murder, the real lovers of death. Open your eyes that you may see!

The truth about the Iraq war is different than you suppose.

It was not to obtain cheap oil. It was to continue to maintain high oil prices. It has been remarkably successful at that.

It is not too hard to follow if you think about it. Support for the sanctions was weakening. They were only held up by the fiction that Saddam had WMDs, and it was becoming clear even to those who paid attention in the US that he did not have them any more. (He destroyed the stocks that we sold to him.)

For this and various political reasons (Saddam gaming other countries with promises of oil reserves) the sanctions would expire. What would happen then? Iraq with the second or third largest reserves would be free to flood the market with oil.

Who would not like that? Well, Bush's other country Saudi Arabia for one. The entire White House staff for another (their day job was with the oil industry.)

So invading Iraq would either let us control the oil (keep it off the market) or be a huge disaster like it is now and keep the oil off the market. It was a slam dunk!

Mr. Anderson,

What we need to do is to stop pretending that there is no moral imperative in Iraq. It is clear from what the Iraqis are telling the U.S. and Britain, as well as from what our own military forces are seeing on the ground on a daily basis, that the forces of unrest in Iraq will only benefit from and thrive in our absence.

The greatest lie of this conflict is the presumption that Iraq's troubles began with US intervention, whether in the 1991 Gulf War or the 2003 invasion. Iraq has been wracked by political and military violence for decades now, stemming from the cruel and reckless leadership of the Baath Party which brought the country to ruin.

Sometimes nations see beyond their own self interest. It would have been in Britain's temporary interest to sue for peace with Germany after Dunkirk. Instead, the British recognized the intractable evil of the enemy they faced and waged war against it with their allies until it was vanquished.

You write: "Niebuhr’s argument is that nations never make a frank avowal of their real motives, that nations will always clothe their self interest in a claim to be fighting for civilization, the good of humanity, order or democracy. Such claims, of course, help secure the allegiance and devotion of the citizenry to the cause in question."

This is cynicism masquerading as wisdom. Sometimes nations are fighting for the good of humanity and for civilization. Sometimes, the enemy is as evil as our leaders remind us they are. Sometimes, the self-interest of the nation is the interest of its neighbors. Ask the Germans, the Jews, the Japanese, the French in WWII, the South Koreans in the Korean War, the boat people of Vietnam.

This doesn't mean that war isn't a brutal, bloody business to be avoided where possible, but where men like Hussein will not give quarter, and especially where they are foolishly bolster by truly self-interested allies (France, Germany, and Russia in the case of Iraq, all who were wanting the sanctions regime to end in order to fulfill clandestinely negotiated agreements with Iraq) sometimes the action of a nation or in this case nations is like that of a surgeon, an attempt to cut out what cannot be saved for the better good of all.

The Middle East holds more dangers than the morally pretentious critics of the Bush Administration are willing to admit. It's far easier to complain of the violence in front of you than the violence that is to come if you do not act.

We frequently hear things from the new totalitarians like this: "Many in America today have patently lost the sense of responsibility that made this country so great and it has now been replaced with a sense of entitlement ... ". Was it that "sense of responsibility" that kept George W. Bush from admitting a single mistake he has made, led him to fight and dodge any inquiry into how he allowed 9/11 to happen and how he has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and countless Iraqis, kept him dully reading a children's book as the hijacked airliners kept hitting their targets? Or was it his "sense of entitlement" and slothful thinking that has led the United States into the most dishonorable, most disastrous military blunder in its history, turning Mesopotamia over to Persian power? Is it that alleged "sense of responsibility" that leads George W. Bush into unitary executive federalism, a recipe for erasing checks and balances, crushing our country into an authoritarian, one-party mold? Or was it his "sense of entitlement" that allows him to speak of himself as "The Decider" and the government as "his" and the role of "commander in chief" as a pass to do literally anything he pleases whenever he chooses? Another age would ridicule such hypocrisy, mendacity and cant. The Founders set up our Constitution precisely to protect us from "deciders" like Bush and his apologists. How well we will be protected remains to be seen.

Hey Brian,

Google Ron Paul....this is the candidate for you, perhaps.

This question about Iraq is a boring question. It has more to do with politics than with faith. Here is a question that the Post should be asking:

"Is it right for Muslims to be building Mosques in Western nations when the Christian proselytizing and church building is banned by law in most Islamic nation?"

==============================
Gigantic mosque sparks furious row in Germany
The Telegraph Group
Published: June 25, 2007, 23:30

Cologne, Germany: The construction of one of Europe's biggest mosques near to a globally famous Christian landmark has sparked a furious row in Germany.

Immigration and integration are hugely sensitive questions in Germany, which is home to a Turkish community of several million.

But almost within the shadow of Cologne Cathedral, political correctness has now been replaced by bitter confrontation, as the city's Muslims begin to build a 2,000-capacity mosque whose twin min-arets will reach 170 feet...

====================

There are now more than 2,000 Mosques in America.

Here are some questions we should all be asking:

Is the colossal "double standard" practiced by Islam of taking advantage of our freedom of religion in Western nations vs. persecution of Christians and Jews in Islamic nations something we should allow? Should the Mosque in Cologne be allowed as long as as Cathedral can not be built in Mecca?

I'd like to bring up a question of morality, but slightly off the Iraq topic. It's about a policy decision that was supposed to remain under the radar. "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." A tri-lateral agreement between Bush, Mexico and Canada, that is veiled as a free trade program, but one of the provisions is to keep an open border between the countries for an immense guest worker program.

Here's the morality issue. Only Bush and the leader of Mexico and Canada were involved. Not congress. In fact, another provision of what's referred to as the "SPP" states that congress has no oversight privileges.

It's especially important right now because the immigration bill is back on the floor of the Senate. And no one's talking about this "SPP" Those of the Senate who insist on border security, or those opposed to a new guest worker program don't seem to know those issues have already been agreed to.
It seems the upcoming vote is at least in part, superfluous.

It's no surprise that this comprehensive immigration bill didn't go through the proper legislative process. No committees or sub-committees. 8 senators and Bush brought the plan directly to the senate floor for a vote.

Now it's being brought up for another vote.

And Bush is claiming to spend billions on border security this time. He's not being honest. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to have already had an 850 mile wall built on the border. Only 12 miles have been completed.

The immigration bill is 1000 pages long, but most of the senate hasn't even read it. In fact, unlike every other bill in the history of the country, they were voting on a bill that hadn't even been written. And it's still not written in its entirety. Only 20 or so amendments will be allowed.

No matter how you feel about this issue, it's important to recognize that yet another decision has been made without America's consent.

True, it's in congress and it's being voted on.
But so was the bill to go to war in Iraq. And that had many provisions congress didn't even know about.

Imagine Hillary Clinton commenting on this immigration reform bill 5 years from now:

"Had I known then what I know now...)

Well, if you're reading this, you know now. I encourage you to google: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."

Or if you're really brave, discover what this might be laying the groundwork for.

Google: "North American Union" and a possible replacement for the dollar called the "amero"

Dav

As you have probably already seen, BGone and Jozevz are two peas in a pod.

Waaaaayyyyy out in left field, past the bull pen, under the stands and in a field of dreams. Its obvious.

Glad there are some writers, historians et al out there that make sense. These two have nothing to offer.

Keith asks:

"Did Bush lie?"

Absolutely. He and his cronies insisted for months that they knew for a fact that Saddam had illegal weapons; that they knew which weapons he had, how many he had and where they were.

They didn't say they "suspected" or "believed" the Iraqis "might have" such weapons, they said they KNEW. They used words like "certainty", and "incontrovertible proof" (which they couldn't show anyone...)

Even if they actually believed in the existence of those weapons and in the threat they posed (and I don't for a minute think they really did) they lied about the quality of the evidence; they lied about the degree of confidence in the intelligence community in their assessments.

They lied to you, Kieth. Why would you continue to trust them?

Regards

A Hermit

Saddam didn't supress those rivalries he fueled them with death and destruction for his foes on the other side of the religious line. It is no accident that the majority of his attrocities were committed against the Shi's and the Kurds rather than against the Sunnis.

Saddam wasn't immortal what was going to prevent a blood bath after his death certainly not those two incompetent sons of his who were already dispised by their fell Sunnis.

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive) comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study the histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive) comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study the histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive)comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study their histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

My sympathy for the travails that you, my neighbors to the south, are going through. I do believe that your hearts (whatever your politics) are in the right places.

Standing further from the trees, and hopefuly better able to see the forest, I make the following (hopefuly constructive)comment:

If I were a Yank, I would very carefully study the history of a number of past empires, particularly the British empire. Then I would go back and study their histories again.

Then I would ask myself the following questions:

Are we Yanks following the path that the Blokes followed over the past few hundred years?

If we are, will that path lead to the same place that it led the Blokes?

"Too lose political and Moral capital among leftists almost always means you are doing what ought to be done."

That appears to be a poor justification for the _optional_ deaths of thousands of people.

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. In this context the war in Iraq has been a failure. We didn’t bring peace but unearthed ancient rivalries in which has produced a blood bath… Tragic… My heart goes out to the innocents who have been afflicted.

Too lose political and Moral capital among leftists almost always means you are doing what ought to be done.

Dav, your source is without question guaranteed accurate. Can we expect film a 11? Who was there in heaven to see all that happen?

So just where does the story, Isiah 14 or wherever come from? How reliable is the source? How reliable is your source, that Satan and Lucifer are the same individual? How is it there's two different names, as just one significant difference? Why is Satan known as "the accuser" and Lucifer the leader of the fallen angels? You know it's a calculated attempt to disguise. Oops. Sorry, I completely forgot that faith is evidence.

Either the Bible is pure fiction or it has a source older than itself. Which do you prefer? Hoax buster is simply showing a source for information like Satan that is much older than the Bible. And it was done in picture writing by the original writers. Being unable to read the script is one thing but not being able to look at a picture....

How sorry are you for my soul? A soul is a record of one's sins. There's lots of folks in the pen that would just love to have their souls burned, their records that is. I see no need to burn mine yet.

Dav, you have been threatened, terrorized with the fires of hell and now you're as stuck as a bug on flypaper. Unless of course you're operating a road block on the nebol bridge, J-Hawking, leading the multitudes, as many as you can to hell. Let us prey.

BGONE,
I will answer that question. First, how is it that Hoax-busters has all the answers? It sounds more like a bible buster web site to me. If anyone writes something to sound true and correct to someone that has your style of thinking, of course you'd believe it. Now on the issue of the bible, it doesn't fit my way of thinking always, so I can chose to believe it or not. Reguardless if I agree with it or not. Unlike your source which is the one that sounds GOOD to you.
Satan, Lucifer was the angel in charge of worship in heaven before the creation of the earth. He was there when it happened. That's when he thought to himself I will do that and become God. That is when God threw him out of heaven. Read Isiah 14. When all he could think is "I" and God said, No you're not! The created will not be the creator. I believe that is simple enough for even someone as limited as you to understand.
As for your Eyptian theroy, if that is what the hoax web site is telling you and you believe it, sorry for your soul.

The above post is mine and I meant to say Rev Anderson and not Rev Elliott who can also give us his so we can compare. Sorry about that.

GINGHAM:

Satan is "the accuser" therefore anyone who "accuses" is a Satan. ..."accuser" loves Hillary...

Satan is an invention of ancient Egypt. That HOAX involved the dead being intercepted in the gap between this life and the next by angels of the Lord God, Pharaoh and "accused" of being disloyal, sinners, violators of God's, Pharaoh's law no less. Therefore Satan is God's right hand man sorting out saints and sinners.

The final decision as to who would be let into the next life, the next kingdom of God, Pharaoh, and who would be thrown into hell was God's, Pharaoh's. That's the third judgment.

Everyone must undergo three judgments.
1. We must be of the correct race. That was Egyptian of course during Pharaoh's reign, the kingdom of God here on earth. Baptism is a race change operation that makes the Baptized Egyptian, we can suppose. All who were not Egyptian then and baptized now were/will be cast into hell.

2. Satan performs the second judgment, the judgment of soul. Sins are determined by giving the judged a lie detector test. When the instrumentation indicates Satan records the sin on the judged person's soul, (record of one's sins). The detail is simple. Satan accuses and the judged deny with the "detector" moving according to the truth of the denial.

3. The third judgment is God's, Pharaoh's alone. During the reign of any particular Pharaoh the dead that passed judgments 1 and 2 were held in a place called Limbo awaiting their "savior" Pharaoh to die and get them out. Pharaoh has the keys to the kingdom of God, Pharaoh.

The three great faiths have that bit of history totally screwed up.

I hope that answers your question. Perhaps Rev Elliott would care to give us his "historically accurate" version of who Satan is.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has the whole story.

Bush bought the HOAX. The first HOAX he believed is the Bible. That FAITH set him up to believe the HOAX that has killed and crippled thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi. Mr Wilson told him the intelligence about the purchase of uranium in Africa was a HOAX.

He was told the Bible is a HOAX. Deny one HOAX deny another. http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 **beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt! Faith moves mountains,, of lies,, to mountains of absolute truths, good enough truths to kill for,, unless of course there is another motive. I believe we the people are the judge or have we abdicated our responsibility to the ministry, bought the HOAX ourselves? Not all of us :)

There is much evidence that Bush was exposed to contrary evidence about WMD. The UN weapons inspectors even protested.
In addition, it is also a question of judgement. Starting a war is a very serious decision, and it cannot be reversed, and thousands of people will die. Given uncertain intel, and low consequences of waiting, the judgement to start the Iraq invasion is clearly suspect.

A genocide is occuring in Darfur. A genocide has occurred in Rwanda. A genocide has occurred in Cambodia. It is hypocritical & logically inconsistent to claim that _starting_ the Iraq invasion was about preventing genocide. As for leaving Iraq now, it is uncertain that a genocide would occur if the US leaves. Right now, that is just another unsubstantiated ideological talking point. I do advocate that a political solution should be pursued in order to allow a proper exit strategy. Tough diplomacy and politics will bring about peace in that region, and not military force.

Indeed, the invasion of Iraq is a huge strategic boon to Iran. It clearly does not appear to be of any positive benefit to the _United States_.

The "moral clout" of which the United States proudly could haved claimed to be a shining expemplar, was essential in bringing diplomatic pressure and persuasion in regards to urging other countries to improve their human rights record.

What sickens me is the attitude that one can push the US into a costly war of aggression, sacrificing its own young, for the profit and strategic interests of other parties.

What is grossly irresponsible is avoiding true accountability for extreme mistakes of judgement, strategy, and tactics which have cost thousands of lives which did not need to be have been lost.

Riiiigghhtt Keith,

And the US didn't support Saddam before the 1990s. And there wasn't less sectarian violence before the invasion of Iraq. Any anyone who disagrees is a bleeding heart liberal who just can't see that the real problem is "personal responsibility" (or other such vague nonsense).

Why don't you try getting your head out of... American partisan politics, for a little while? Republicans and Democrats are quite similar to each other. "responsibility" can not make up for the lack of social interconnectedness that previously made people "responsible". My friend, you are guilty of sloth.

What do you think drives war? Morality and "good intentions"? If you believe that, you are naive.

Did Bush lie? Absolutely not.
Did Bush rely on the best information available? Yes.
Did Bush not believe the exact same things that the Democrats have been saying since the mid 90's? Absolutely. Visit http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml for definitive proof.
Is the war in Iraq moral? Absolutely and if you need to have the difference between intentionally pursuing the death and destruction of an ethnic group because they differ from you and the regrettable yet unintentional deaths caused in any conflict then I weep for you. Saddam instigated many war. He attached Iran. He then invaded Kuwait in order to rape that country for it's wealth so that he could continue to fight Iran. Saddam also directly murdered thousands of Kurds on a whim. Saddam funded world wide terrorism. His army ran multiple camps, most notable of all was Salman Pac, wherein his military trained terrorist forces in such activities as bomb-making, surveillance and weapons tactics.

The man was a vile and disgusting beast and anyone who can't see that worries me.

As for all you knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathers answer me this. To date, which US President has awarded Haliburton more no-bid contracts? Bush or Clinton?

Here's a hint, he plays the saxaphone.

As for those who feel that the US lost "moral clout" because of the invasion you need to stop confusing yourself. Moral clout IS NOT popularity. In fact, the two are often mutually exclusive. The moral person is most usually not the most well liked and if our losing of popularity on the worlds stage is any indicator then we are truly following the moral compass needle.

What sickens me the most is the scary fact that many in America today have patently lost the sense of responsibility that made this country so great and it has now been replaced with a sense of entitlement and sloth.

Much of the money spent on the war flows into the US economy. Vehicles, weapons, etc.

The world economy is based on oil. The developing world is increasing the demand.

Companies that stand to profit from new forms of energy are not powerful enough.

The Bush administration is full of oil experts - Bush is one.

The invasion of Iraq cannot be about true national interest.

1) The US lost a great deal of political and moral capital throughout the world, and it will reverberate into the future (ie: Gitmo, torture, initiating a war of invasion, etc...)

2) If it's about securing oil supplies, the same about of money spent on this war -- billions, trillions, could be spent on alternative energy research and actually buying hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles, nuclear powerplants, geothermal, etc... Alternative energy development would be what would truly secure this country's economic security.

3) If it is about going after the terrorists, then we should have concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. In addition, it would have been more productive to capitalize on the world's great deal of support, post-911, by enlisting other governments' to ally their police forces in rooting out terrorists. (Instead we alienated and scared the rest of the world by invading another country without legitimate, moral cause.)

It was completely illogical to invade Iraq while we are in Afghanistan. WHAT WAS THE RUSH? This point is extremely telling. There was no logical reason to rush to war in Iraq, unless there were criminal, underhanded motives to secure the Iraq quagmire.

----

as for the tired excuse of blaming Bill Clinton for GWB believing that Iraq had WMD:
You don't bet the farm (trillions$, and 3000+ volunteer kids lives) on a set of bluff cards in a poker match. That's just stupid and immorally reckless. Bill Clinton wasn't stupid enough to start a war of aggression based on iffy intel, when there wasn't an overriding need to take a huge risk.
And anyway, with Bill Clinton's saber rattling foreign policy, you can accuse to make sure Saddam won't even think of going there, and it cost nothing. That's nuanced intelligence. GWB and Cheney didn't have that and look how America's foreign policy has been hurt.

----------

As for following the money:
1) Cheney was previously CEO at Halliburton, started the Iraq war, and then gave Halliburton huge no-bid contracts because of that war.
2) Cheney held "secret energy meetings" with who? Dunno, because he'll fight tooth and nail to keep it secret -- why? For America's interests? no. For his own probably.
3) Oil & gasoline prices shoot up 200%+ Energy companies make a killing. Hmmm... what a coincidence, especially when Wolfowitz (whom GWB appointed to the World Bank -- another absurdity of reward) claimed that oil would flow from Iraq to pay for the war.
4) The military industrial complex (MIC) gets more business. Especially after the end of the Cold War, the MIC is probably encouraged to drum up business by touting new foreign threats. Right-wing, hard line foreign policy positions are easy to disseminate and publically hype without much opposition and skeptical cross-examination in the media and among politicians in Congress.

Reinhold Niebuhr also was an early promoter of Communism in the US in the 1930's. Perhaps one of the first to espouse moral equivalency between Stalin's Russia and the USA. Say no more....

by the way, what is it about Episcopalians? They seem to have this strange desire for self-extinction of themselves and their faith.

Who the heck is Satan?

How has religion created peace?

SATAN LOVES HILLARY, OBAMA, AND EDWARDS!

SATAN LOVES HILLARY, OBAMA, AND EDWARDS!

PS - where did Saddam get the weapons for that attack on the kurds?

Also, who gave tacit approval of the massacre?

THE GOOD OLD USA.

The twisted political use of humanitarian issues by those who support this war (or any war) is unbelievable!

"...in Iraq, where we have great national security interests..."

Are you an Israeli, Koolaid?

Because that is the only way that your above statement makes sense.

....unless you are a Neo Con....and believe corporate utopia of American imperialism and think that they "hate us because of our freedom!"

You seem to be still drinking more than your fair share the cool aid.

Over 1 million Kurds, Shiites, Kuwaitees and Iranians killed in his 24 year reign and you have to ask if Hussein was a mass murderer? Seems to me that those who think this wasn't a just war have no sense of justice and no claim to moral judgments. I'll bet that most of you who ignore Saddam Hussein's reign of mass death argue that the United States should intervene militarily in Darfur to stop that genocide. If is is moral there, where no U.S. interest are in play, why is it immoral to do so in Iraq, where we have great national security interests. I call you hypocrites and fools!

GaryD,

Didn't people look at the shadow of the earth on the moon and still maintain the earth was flat because the Bible said the earth had four corners and it looked flat from where they stood?

Not much different in that and what's going on today in terms of government. Why would Bush want to undermine the Constitution of the United States of America, which he took and oath to preserve, protect, and defend? And Cheney took a different oath which is the standard oath for government employees which included the requirement to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter'". The sworn duty of both is to defend the Constitution. There is certainly no honor in what they are doing compared to what they swore they would do and clearly there has to be some objective by someone other than maintaining the Constitution of the United States of America as the governing instrument for these united states.

Att: B E N, et al

In three billion years from now, {this is revelation a.k/a Inevitable] Mother/Father Earth via Milky way Galaxy will collide with, our neighbour, Andromeda Sister/Brother Galaxy. So;

What to do next? Throw down all your inferior "Biblical-Morality" systems, and Uphold, instead the OURS-BOOK. This will and is ours Genuine MANNA from Universe not Biblio Heaven or hel;.

note: ALL Abrahamic religions today, includes Vedic systems are POLYTHEISTIC Religion(s) in Fact! You've been suckered all this time.

Remember: Each Eclati-on is "Superior" to any Deity made G-d etc.. including their Rabbi's, Priests etc. It's just a big business.

You are Superior because of your Modern Morality Knowledge and them ancient thinking folk are inferior because of their tautological biblical morality instead of innate morality..

And Eclati-ons are always On & Aware that Life is a Miracle & never is or was a sin, Like I once was tricked to belive against my innate Eclati-on awareness, because of what my Dad & Mom told me & exposed me via Organized Religion!

So now I am glad to say that All Preapocalyptic Religion sytems are dead, their Scripture, Leader(s) & Father & Son G-d(s) , Angel(s) & Satan(s) and their most Evil Story's ever told.

Notice the Pluralisim (s's), this proves that All your pre-Apocalyptic faith(s) system(s) today, are in Fact POLY-THEO Religion(s) Sytem(s).

I repeat, All Abrahamic & Vedic Religions [Jew, Chris, islam, Hindu, Budha, Siekh et al] are POLYTHEISTIC Faith based belief religion(s) System(s). This in Fact More than ONE-GOD! Ah ah, do not "D & D" or Do (practice) and Deny" .

All of Americas, From North (Canada/Alaska To very south (Argentina) should be ONE Nation. (120 Staes in all).

Imagine No Passport. One Law, One Language {speak English or Esperanto & espanol} etc.. This means that the island nature continents of Americas can exist without the rest of the world! So there will be a time when Arabs & their oil will run-out or they will drink it themselves.

Behold: This day will come! America is soon going to merge with all of Mexico and thus there will be added another 8 or 10 states to the red blue & white! President Calderon will become a "Governor of one state. and ex Mex prez Vincent Fox can be a Governor of another, & so & so. Wow. This will be!

So Europe, ASIA aFRICA, THEY ARE ALL GOING TO KILL EACH OTHER OFF. AND AMERICAS WILL BE the only ones left except for Australia & New Zealand & afew other isolated nations!

eeeeee haaaaaa Praise the Holy no mon Lordi/Eclati in me and my me me in and of US-ALl! Halaluya! Ize gots da Goooosssyy woooozzzzy bummparino's & a Flashing Tingalinos up 7 a down me Eclati-on butt! Ya Ya.

It pays to be a Holy Cosmic feeler Aware.

SPEED123:

"Means do not justify ends; we are a nation of principle and law - both of which have threated in the name of imperialism and special interests favored by this administration.

The true fight to secure fabric and security of our Republic is at home!"

I agree. Regarding eavesdropping, there are two viable options:

1) Continue to let the federal government eavesdrop on us, but don't let it become common knowledge. It should be a secret wherever possible, and it should not become a legal precedent.

This will not solve the legal issue, but it is better than openly allowing almost unlimited eavesdropping.

2) Develop a framework of laws, checks and balances to protect both privacy and security. At the same time, allow a limited amount of very secret eavesdropping, for a certain amount of time, say ten years, until laws are created to clarify where privacy begins, and where it ends. Hopefully our privacy is left intact.

The rule of law is ultimately much more important to our security than the terrorism threat of the day. If the legal system is robust, we will be able to deal with security threats swiftly and without political turmoil.

As it stands, the government has taken option 1. That is a cop out.

This is a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. We need a balanced, principled and ultimately constitutional approach!

No cop outs David! If you want eavesdropping to be allowed for the federal government, then the burden is on you to support the creation of laws that regulate privacy in our communication systems! I am not completely against all forms of eavesdropping.

That is the American way.

didn't Niebuhr also argue that the Nazi persecution of Jews was justified?

All of you "no blood for oil" die hards should read the following:

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/03/06/p14964

It is not oil, but neo conservative desire for geo political control and protection of Israel that drives our policy...

David:

"Nathan, I absolutely agree that the political aspirations of Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards predisposed them to want to take certain positions such as advocating war with Sadam.

There were a total of 81 representatives and 29 Senators who were democrats that voted for the Iraq war resolution. I don't think they all voted the way they did because they want to be president.

But why did Clinton, Kerry, Edwards think that voting for war with Iraq would help them become president? The Democratic Party in recent history has generally been against war unless absolutely necessary. Why would they and the other democratic Senators and Representatives want to fight the natural instincts of their party unless they thought they had a good reason? If any of the nefarious motives given were the main reason for the Iraq war, how does supporting that help any democrat become President? Why would any of them think doing so was a good idea?

Not everyone is ignorant with incoherent babble. I would say just a little over half the comments. The others are people with the same information coming to different conclusions. Good people can disagree. If you were offended let me reassure you I was not talking about you.

Let me pose this question to any democrat or liberal to answer: why did Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and so many other democratic Senators and Representatives tell the American public Sadam had to be removed, vote for and support the war when it seemed to be going well. Stan and I am sure others think my explanation for their behavior, that they overestimated the threat from Sadam and underestimated the difficulty, is incorrect. If I got it wrong I'm interested in hearing a good argument why."

ANSWER:
Because they are influenced by the same lobbyists, special interests, national interests and political pressures as the republicans!

Do you think we are some Democrat loving, "Impeach Bush" bumber-sticker flaunting morons? It is true that I voted for the Democrats in both George W. Bush elections, but that doesn't mean I think Bush is the worst possible leader.

I have considered the most important requirement for US industry, and the US economy, in the coming 30 years. Oil is it. Controlling it, regardless of whether we are ever going to run out, is so profitable that nothing else compares.

If I thought we were going to run out of oil, I would invest in oil. Perhaps I would try to invest in the oil companies if I thought they were planning well for the energy transition that might come next.

Regardless, oil is getting more expensive to obtain, and demand is increasing. That is what matters.

"One question we should ask ourselves is are we willing to conserve oil to free our foreign policy from it? How many patriotic folks with little magnetic yellow ribbons on their SUV's are willing to downsize to a car that gets good gas mileage?"

I think we are willing to drive smaller cars. But I think oil is more complex than that. It is a zero sum game in so far as whatever oil is available is priced according to how many people want it and how much they want. There are diminishing returns when oil becomes relatively more difficult to drill and refine.

China wants oil, and they are going to want a lot more than we do in the next 30 years. China and the United States are going to be the two most oil-dependent economies in the world. I don't think we are going to run out completely, but it is going to get more expensive to obtain.

Cars are one thing. But our entire economy runs on oil.

Wow, lot's of interesting points of view here. A couple of comments:

David, regarding Dick Cheney: Oh yes he does have more power than your average VP. A whole hell of a lot more. I'd wager the most that any VP has ever had, and man, it's scary, because this guy does pretty much anything he wants, and he doesn't care if what he does conflicts with the Constitution and the law.

If he doesn't like the facts, he just makes them up. The same week the Pentagon released its final report stating definitively that there were no ties between Sadaam and Al Qaeda, Cheney was on Rush Limbaugh saying "We know for sure there were ties between Sadaam and Al Qaeda..."

David, on Congress stopping the war: Well, they almost did, and another vote comes up in September. Do not forget that Co