7/18/07

Why are we still funding the occupation of Iraq?

'Cause it sure as hell ain't for freedom:
Basra, Iraq – On Monday, hundreds of Iraqis, led by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), took to the streets of Basra to demand that the Iraqi Parliament reject the proposed Oil Law. [1]

Simultaneous demonstrations took place in Amara and Nassiryya. Local governate officials made statements in support of the demonstration and, along with the governor of Basra, have committed to sending letters to the Minister of Oil supporting the Union’s demands.

Hassan Juma’a Awad al Assadi, President of the IFOU, charges that the proposed Oil Law surrenders Iraq’s economic sovereignty to multinational oil companies: “‘We will lose control over Iraqi oil. Therefore, the social progress in Iraq will be curtailed substantially, because the oil companies want huge profits; they are not concerned about the environment, wages, or living conditions…” The IFOU calls for immediate and complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq. The union represents 26,000 members in 10 state oil and gas companies across four governorates in the south of Iraq.

The Union was moved to public protest after initiating a strike on June 4, 2007 over a range of workplace issues and in opposition to the proposed Oil Law. IFOU leaders have said their members are prepared to strike again in defense of their nationalized oil industry. Iraq’s oil has been in the public sector since the 1970s.


Oh yeah... It is those "Iraq Constitution changes" they keep talking about that have everything to do with stealing their oil, and nothing to do with spreading freedom or Democracy.

Well, unless you are talking about spreading bushies FREEDUMB...

If the Democratic party were serious about ending the occupation of Iraq they could do it. All it would take is 40 Dems to shut down Congress in an ongoing filibuster:

Almost exactly two months ago, I wrote that Democrats need a Mr. Smith - someone, anyone in the Senate to shut the institution down in order to force Congress to respect the will of the American people and start ending the war in Iraq. Now, Democrats don't even need Mr. Smith-style bravery - they need only to force the Republicans to filibuster the effort to end the war.

Yes, that's right - Democrats have the power to make the Republican Party stand up on the floor of the Senate, and shut the government down in order to continue the Iraq War, if that's what the GOP wants to do. Miles Mogulescu at the Huffington Post explains:

In recent decades, there has been a "gentleman's agreement" that old-fashioned filibusters are no longer required: If 41 Senators block a vote, the Majority Leader just moves on to other business. Where once the filibuster was reserved for matters of national importance where a minority stood on principle, now the ease of filibustering has made it routine...Majority Leader Reid has the power, however, to ignore the "gentleman's" agreement and force an old-fashioned filibuster. Republican Minority Leader Bill Frist did this in 2003, forcing the Democrats to stage a real filibuster against the nomination of right-wing judge Miguel Estrada.

So, folks, here we are again, asking whether Democrats are going to use the power the public gave them in the 2006 election specifically to fulfill their election promises to end the war. The country is tired of Democrats' Innocent Bystander Fable (see the video above for what I mean). Nobody outside of Washington, D.C. believes - nor should they believe - that Democrats don't have the power to end the war, or must have 60 votes in order to end the war. Nobody believes those excuses because they are as dishonest and destructive as President Bush telling us Iraq had WMD.





But Iraq is about the oil, and the democratic party is using the occupation as much as bush is. Bush and the GOP uses it to spread fear and divide the nation, BUT the Dems are using it as a means to get control of the White House. And they both use it all as a means to get to the oil.

I stayed up until until about 3 o'clock listening to the debate on the floor.

I just wish the Dems would filibuster EVERYTHING to stop Congress all together until they get the Republicans to stop filibustering votes on pulling out. They may as well. What they are doing hasn't done anything to change things. All it takes is 40 Dems to stop Congress in its tracks and end the war.

If they really wanted to end it, they could.

3 comments:

GinnyD said...

why would the Dems filibuster? They are in the majority. They bring the bills to the floor. Why in the world would they filibuster their own bills. By the way, Bill Frist was never minority leader. He was always the majority leader.

Connecticut Man 1 said...

Did you watch the Sirota video? It explains the "Dems can't end the war myth." They could have done it in the minority, and they can still do it in the majority.

40 Dems could shut down the Senate. They could force them to face the important votes BEFORE any more money gets spent or bills get passed.

If the republicans want to filibuster the Dems proposals to draw down or end the war, then 40 Dems could just shut it ALL down. That is all it takes and that is why.

Connecticut Man 1 said...

Reid is effectively doing this:

"Ratcheting up the stakes in the wake of the GOP's successful blocking of a vote on Iraq withdrawal just moments ago, Harry Reid just announced on the Senate floor that he won't allow a vote on the entire Defense Authorization bill until the Senate GOP drops its filibustering of votes on Iraq.

snip

What this means is this: Reid is basically saying he won't allow any votes on any other Iraq amendments -- not the toothless Warner-Lugar amendment, not the Ken Salazar amendment that would force adoption of the Baker-Hamilton plan, nothing -- until the GOP agrees to allow straight up or down votes.

Reid says he's directing his aides to enter into negotiations with the GOP side to see if this latest gauntlet throwing wrenches further concessions out of the Republicans. It'll be interesting to see where this goes."


He is demanding a vote on what Dems want to get to what the money party people want. This isn't a filibuster but it has the same effect.

Good. Now all he has to do is stick to it, and and not table a damn thing until they vote on the BIG things.