Who Will Say ‘No More’?

“Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on,” warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.
Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn’t jump on any stove, hot or cold, today’s Democratic leaders didn’t want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and — as the Big Muddy is rising yet again — now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we’ve blown up, and weakening America’s national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: “I was wrong.”

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration’s misfortune is the Democrats’ fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: “I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me.”

Gary Hart | Washington Post (read more. . .)

August 25th, 2005 || PermaLink

A Soldier Speaks: Kelly Dougherty

I also saw a lot of times, abuses of power by people in the military — using excessive unwarranted force against the Iraqis because they could and they could get away with it. One of the things we dealt with a lot in my unit was guarding broken down vehicles. All these convoys would drive by every day, hundreds and hundreds of vehicles every day, and most of them were owned by [Kellogg] Brown and Root, which is a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation.

These fuel tankers would sometimes break down or they would get stuck in the mud and we would have to go and secure them so the Iraqis wouldn’t loot them … One of the most frustrating things about our mission there was every day when we went out to guard these trucks, we’d have to call back to the base and request rapid route when someone recovered a vehicle because supposedly it’s an asset — because it’s full of fuel and of course the money from the vehicle.

So, we’d wait there for two or three hours guarding this vehicle from hundreds of Iraqis, who wanted to get something, because they didn’t have any jobs and they were still poor. It’s hard to understand how a piece of scrap metal from a vehicle can be worth something. But for people who have nothing, it really was an asset to them. Inevitably, after waiting there for three hours, we’d get a call that we weren’t going to get anyone out there so just leave it. We’ve been guarding it for three hours. Or we would get orders to destroy it and burn it. You know it’s really hard when you’re initially told that, ‘Oh, you’re going to be helping the Iraqi people,’ but all that you’re really doing is destroying something in front of them. That was really frustrating.

And after a while we got some riot control stuff. What’s called ‘Less than Lethal’ ammunition — bean bag shots for guns, and rubber bullets and smoke grenades — things like that to control the crowds. I saw a lot of abuse of those things, like indiscriminate firing with rubber bullets, because you know it’s probably not going to kill someone. So, for some it was funny to do drive-by shootings with rubber bullets. And the things are no joke! It could kill someone, like a small child … Or if it hits you in the face … It’s something you don’t play with.

We were originally in an area of Iraq that was originally one of the safer areas and it had more support from the local people for the war. But to me, I was more apprehensive every day I went out because I knew every day we were making enemies from people who might have wanted to give us the benefit of the doubt, or who had hope in us originally. Now, they’re not.

When a mother’s seven-year-old son comes home with a huge welt because he was shot by a rubber bullet, or someone threw rocks at him — every day I could tell we were making more and more enemies. I definitely sensed a change from when we first got there — when we would drive by, people would wave at us and smile at us. To when we left — more and more people would just turn their backs or give us rude gestures. And of course you can’t blame the Iraqi people.

At the same time, you can’t totally blame the American soldiers. Because you’re sent to Iraq without really knowing why you’re there, your mission keeps changing, it seems like you’re not accomplishing anything and you’re kind of just protecting yourself.

Then you get into these confrontations with the Iraqi people and you start to take out all of your frustration and stress and project it onto them. And then it turns into hatred for them … I think you have to blame the whole thing — the whole occupation of Iraq — it’s the bigger problem.

An Alternet interview by Celina R. De Leon | (read more. . .)

August 24th, 2005 || PermaLink

Bush’s Option to Escalate the War in Iraq

The Bush administration may ratchet up the Iraq war.

That might seem unlikely, even farfetched. After all, the president is facing an upsurge of domestic opposition to the war. Under such circumstances, why would he escalate it?

A big ongoing factor is that George W. Bush and his top aides seem to believe in red-white-and-blue violence with a fervor akin to religiosity. For them, the Pentagon’s capacity to destroy is some kind of sacrament. And even if more troops aren’t readily available for duty in Iraq, huge supplies of aircraft and missiles are available to step up the killing from the air.

Back in the USA, while the growth of antiwar sentiment is apparent, much of the criticism — especially what’s spotlighted in news media — is based on distress that American casualties are continuing without any semblance of victory. In effect, many commentators see the problem as a grievous failure to kill enough of the bad guys in Iraq and sufficiently intimidate the rest.

(Bypassing the euphemisms preferred by many liberal pundits, George Will wrote in a Washington Post column on April 7, 2004, that “every door American troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot — there will be many — will make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence.”)

A lot of what sounds like opposition to the war is more like opposition to losing the war. Consider how Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin concluded a piece on Sunday that disparaged Bush and his war policies. The column included eloquent, heartrending words from the mother of a Marine Corps Reserve member who died in Iraq early this year. And yet, the last quote from her was: “Tell us what it is going to take to win, Mr. Bush.” In a tag line, the columnist described it as a question “we all need an answer to.”

But some questions are based on assumptions that should be rejected — and “What is it going to take to win?” is one of them. In Iraq, the U.S. occupation force can’t “win.” More importantly, it has no legitimate right to try.

Norman Solomon | CommonDreams (read more. . .)

August 23rd, 2005 || PermaLink

The Dying American Soul

Two days ago, Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, defended his government’s policy of providing oil to poor nations at concessional prices.

Yesterday, Reverend Pat Robertson, the influential American religious leader and former presidential candidate, said that the United States should kill President Chavez for spreading “communism.” Yes. Our ultimate Christian said that we should kill the man dead.

What is to become of our society?

I listen for public outrage and hear nothing. So inured to political murder have we become that our public soul has died.

We are, I fear, the democracy that can no longer remember why.

Such is the hard, broad measure of our nation’s ethical decay.

Randall Robinson | huffingtonpost (read more. . .)

August 23rd, 2005 || PermaLink

Hypocrites and Liars

I got an e-mail the other day and it said, “Cindy if [only] you didn’t use so much profanity . There’s people on the fence that get offended.”

And you know what I said? “You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?

“If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.”

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George’s ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can’t come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven’t noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush’s war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that ‘Freedom isn’t Free’ but I don’t see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don’t think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the mainstream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, TX. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I left even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: ‘My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it.’ I have never said ‘pretty please’ or ‘thank you.’ I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses ‘Patriotic Rhetoric.’ I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn’t use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren’t there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Cindy Sheehan | CommonDreams (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink

The Fallout from One Mom’s Voice

This war was sold to the public as a matter of self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. But the WMDs never appeared.

Next we were told that Iraq was the front line in the war against terrorists: ”better there than here.” But evidence shows that the vast majority of the foreign fighters are not relocated terrorists but new recruits radicalized by the war itself. More recently, we were told to ‘’stay the course” to ensure democracy in Iraq. But as Iraqis wrangle over a constitution that may not look anything like ours, the list of rationales gets shorter and the support for the war gets weaker.

Taken altogether, the polls show a majority of Americans now believe that it was a mistake to send troops to war, that the results are not worth the loss of American life, and that the war has not made us safer.

The most powerful argument left is the one the president repeats again and again: ”And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.”

Enter Cindy Sheehan.

Until now, the rallying cry ”Support Our Troops” meant ”Support the War.” One seemed inseparable from another. Criticizing the war felt like criticizing the troops. But on a dusty, hot road in Texas, Sheehan worked to sever this link.

So the question is not whether the president will talk with her. He won’t. It’s not whether she speaks for her son. We’ll never know. It’s not whether she is ”just a mom” or an anti-Bush agitator. She’s both. It’s whether nearly 1,900 Americans died in a war of choice and how painful that is to acknowledge. It’s whether we go on quietly honoring those deaths with more deaths.

No wonder ”peace mom” has become a target of the war over the war. If she succeeds, the White House has lost perhaps the final and most powerful justification they offer a disheartened American public. At that point, there’s no way out of the Iraq muddle. Except out.

Ellen Goodman | Boston Globe (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink

Bush’s Other Iraq Invasion

Oil is, of course, at the heart of the agenda. In 2004, U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi submitted guidelines to Iraq’s Supreme Council for Oil Policy suggesting that the “Iraqi government disengage from running the oil sector … and that the [Iraq National Oil Company] be partly privatized in the future” and opened to international foreign investment, according to International Oil Daily. (U.S oil imports from Iraq increased by more than 86 percent between 2003 and 2004 alone.)

Plans for a new Iraqi oil law were made public last December at a news conference in Washington hosted by the U.S. government. The U.S.-appointed interim Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi explained that the new law would be “very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.”

A few weeks later, Mehdi became one of Iraq’s two vice presidents and Allawi was elected to the National Assembly. Iraq’s new oil law is on track for implementation in 2006.

Antonia Juhasz | AlterNet (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink

Who Will Say ‘No More’?

“Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on,” warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.
Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn’t jump on any stove, hot or cold, today’s Democratic leaders didn’t want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and — as the Big Muddy is rising yet again — now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we’ve blown up, and weakening America’s national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: “I was wrong.”

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration’s misfortune is the Democrats’ fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: “I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me.”

Gary Hart | Washington Post (read more. . .)

August 25th, 2005 || PermaLink

A Soldier Speaks: Kelly Dougherty

I also saw a lot of times, abuses of power by people in the military — using excessive unwarranted force against the Iraqis because they could and they could get away with it. One of the things we dealt with a lot in my unit was guarding broken down vehicles. All these convoys would drive by every day, hundreds and hundreds of vehicles every day, and most of them were owned by [Kellogg] Brown and Root, which is a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation.

These fuel tankers would sometimes break down or they would get stuck in the mud and we would have to go and secure them so the Iraqis wouldn’t loot them … One of the most frustrating things about our mission there was every day when we went out to guard these trucks, we’d have to call back to the base and request rapid route when someone recovered a vehicle because supposedly it’s an asset — because it’s full of fuel and of course the money from the vehicle.

So, we’d wait there for two or three hours guarding this vehicle from hundreds of Iraqis, who wanted to get something, because they didn’t have any jobs and they were still poor. It’s hard to understand how a piece of scrap metal from a vehicle can be worth something. But for people who have nothing, it really was an asset to them. Inevitably, after waiting there for three hours, we’d get a call that we weren’t going to get anyone out there so just leave it. We’ve been guarding it for three hours. Or we would get orders to destroy it and burn it. You know it’s really hard when you’re initially told that, ‘Oh, you’re going to be helping the Iraqi people,’ but all that you’re really doing is destroying something in front of them. That was really frustrating.

And after a while we got some riot control stuff. What’s called ‘Less than Lethal’ ammunition — bean bag shots for guns, and rubber bullets and smoke grenades — things like that to control the crowds. I saw a lot of abuse of those things, like indiscriminate firing with rubber bullets, because you know it’s probably not going to kill someone. So, for some it was funny to do drive-by shootings with rubber bullets. And the things are no joke! It could kill someone, like a small child … Or if it hits you in the face … It’s something you don’t play with.

We were originally in an area of Iraq that was originally one of the safer areas and it had more support from the local people for the war. But to me, I was more apprehensive every day I went out because I knew every day we were making enemies from people who might have wanted to give us the benefit of the doubt, or who had hope in us originally. Now, they’re not.

When a mother’s seven-year-old son comes home with a huge welt because he was shot by a rubber bullet, or someone threw rocks at him — every day I could tell we were making more and more enemies. I definitely sensed a change from when we first got there — when we would drive by, people would wave at us and smile at us. To when we left — more and more people would just turn their backs or give us rude gestures. And of course you can’t blame the Iraqi people.

At the same time, you can’t totally blame the American soldiers. Because you’re sent to Iraq without really knowing why you’re there, your mission keeps changing, it seems like you’re not accomplishing anything and you’re kind of just protecting yourself.

Then you get into these confrontations with the Iraqi people and you start to take out all of your frustration and stress and project it onto them. And then it turns into hatred for them … I think you have to blame the whole thing — the whole occupation of Iraq — it’s the bigger problem.

An Alternet interview by Celina R. De Leon | (read more. . .)

August 24th, 2005 || PermaLink

Bush’s Option to Escalate the War in Iraq

The Bush administration may ratchet up the Iraq war.

That might seem unlikely, even farfetched. After all, the president is facing an upsurge of domestic opposition to the war. Under such circumstances, why would he escalate it?

A big ongoing factor is that George W. Bush and his top aides seem to believe in red-white-and-blue violence with a fervor akin to religiosity. For them, the Pentagon’s capacity to destroy is some kind of sacrament. And even if more troops aren’t readily available for duty in Iraq, huge supplies of aircraft and missiles are available to step up the killing from the air.

Back in the USA, while the growth of antiwar sentiment is apparent, much of the criticism — especially what’s spotlighted in news media — is based on distress that American casualties are continuing without any semblance of victory. In effect, many commentators see the problem as a grievous failure to kill enough of the bad guys in Iraq and sufficiently intimidate the rest.

(Bypassing the euphemisms preferred by many liberal pundits, George Will wrote in a Washington Post column on April 7, 2004, that “every door American troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot — there will be many — will make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence.”)

A lot of what sounds like opposition to the war is more like opposition to losing the war. Consider how Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin concluded a piece on Sunday that disparaged Bush and his war policies. The column included eloquent, heartrending words from the mother of a Marine Corps Reserve member who died in Iraq early this year. And yet, the last quote from her was: “Tell us what it is going to take to win, Mr. Bush.” In a tag line, the columnist described it as a question “we all need an answer to.”

But some questions are based on assumptions that should be rejected — and “What is it going to take to win?” is one of them. In Iraq, the U.S. occupation force can’t “win.” More importantly, it has no legitimate right to try.

Norman Solomon | CommonDreams (read more. . .)

August 23rd, 2005 || PermaLink

The Dying American Soul

Two days ago, Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, defended his government’s policy of providing oil to poor nations at concessional prices.

Yesterday, Reverend Pat Robertson, the influential American religious leader and former presidential candidate, said that the United States should kill President Chavez for spreading “communism.” Yes. Our ultimate Christian said that we should kill the man dead.

What is to become of our society?

I listen for public outrage and hear nothing. So inured to political murder have we become that our public soul has died.

We are, I fear, the democracy that can no longer remember why.

Such is the hard, broad measure of our nation’s ethical decay.

Randall Robinson | huffingtonpost (read more. . .)

August 23rd, 2005 || PermaLink

Hypocrites and Liars

I got an e-mail the other day and it said, “Cindy if [only] you didn’t use so much profanity . There’s people on the fence that get offended.”

And you know what I said? “You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?

“If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.”

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George’s ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can’t come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven’t noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush’s war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that ‘Freedom isn’t Free’ but I don’t see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don’t think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the mainstream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, TX. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I left even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: ‘My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it.’ I have never said ‘pretty please’ or ‘thank you.’ I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses ‘Patriotic Rhetoric.’ I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn’t use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren’t there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Cindy Sheehan | CommonDreams (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink

The Fallout from One Mom’s Voice

This war was sold to the public as a matter of self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. But the WMDs never appeared.

Next we were told that Iraq was the front line in the war against terrorists: ”better there than here.” But evidence shows that the vast majority of the foreign fighters are not relocated terrorists but new recruits radicalized by the war itself. More recently, we were told to ‘’stay the course” to ensure democracy in Iraq. But as Iraqis wrangle over a constitution that may not look anything like ours, the list of rationales gets shorter and the support for the war gets weaker.

Taken altogether, the polls show a majority of Americans now believe that it was a mistake to send troops to war, that the results are not worth the loss of American life, and that the war has not made us safer.

The most powerful argument left is the one the president repeats again and again: ”And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.”

Enter Cindy Sheehan.

Until now, the rallying cry ”Support Our Troops” meant ”Support the War.” One seemed inseparable from another. Criticizing the war felt like criticizing the troops. But on a dusty, hot road in Texas, Sheehan worked to sever this link.

So the question is not whether the president will talk with her. He won’t. It’s not whether she speaks for her son. We’ll never know. It’s not whether she is ”just a mom” or an anti-Bush agitator. She’s both. It’s whether nearly 1,900 Americans died in a war of choice and how painful that is to acknowledge. It’s whether we go on quietly honoring those deaths with more deaths.

No wonder ”peace mom” has become a target of the war over the war. If she succeeds, the White House has lost perhaps the final and most powerful justification they offer a disheartened American public. At that point, there’s no way out of the Iraq muddle. Except out.

Ellen Goodman | Boston Globe (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink

Bush’s Other Iraq Invasion

Oil is, of course, at the heart of the agenda. In 2004, U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi submitted guidelines to Iraq’s Supreme Council for Oil Policy suggesting that the “Iraqi government disengage from running the oil sector … and that the [Iraq National Oil Company] be partly privatized in the future” and opened to international foreign investment, according to International Oil Daily. (U.S oil imports from Iraq increased by more than 86 percent between 2003 and 2004 alone.)

Plans for a new Iraqi oil law were made public last December at a news conference in Washington hosted by the U.S. government. The U.S.-appointed interim Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi explained that the new law would be “very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.”

A few weeks later, Mehdi became one of Iraq’s two vice presidents and Allawi was elected to the National Assembly. Iraq’s new oil law is on track for implementation in 2006.

Antonia Juhasz | AlterNet (read more. . .)

August 22nd, 2005 || PermaLink