I'm not sure how sincere Biden is on this since he has dodged these questions earlier.
But if Democrats were serious about ending the war and leaving Iraq without having made lasting enemies, they would talk about this every time they were asked on MEET THE PRESS, CNN, or one of the networks to talk about Anna Nicole Smith, and if the newsmodel with the microphone cuts them off, leave and don't come back. For Kucinich or Lynn Woolsey, that won't have them quaking in their boots, but if a committee chair like Biden did, they might.
The other part of this is to simply stop talking about Iraq as if the goal of the Bush administration is fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, or anything of the sort. Those are excuses and propaganda, not reasons. They went there to steal. If Homer Simpson broke into a donut shop, you know he is not there to do a health inspection. If a bunch of heartless corporate sociopaths invade a country with tens of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of oil, they aren't there to do missionary work.
Our troops may want to do good for people there, but they have limited resources to do so when the reconstruction money goes in the pocket of no-work and no-show cronies.
The sooner Democrats talk exclusively in a way that acknowledges this, the sooner we will get out, and when the American people figure this out, the question won't be whether Bush finishes his term, resigns, or is impeached, but whether the cops catch him and Cheney before they flee the country.
Some Democrats Oppose Forcing Iraq To Accept Foreign Investment in Oil
One benchmark, though, has gotten much attention from the Bush administration. The current bill going through Congress would ratchet up pressure on the Iraqi Parliament to enact "a broadly accepted hydrocarbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis."***
The Associated Press reported earlier this month that Maliki fears the U.S. would withdraw support for him if he doesn't succeed in passing the current version of the bill. Democratic opponents of the oil benchmark in the House argued last week that Iraq should not be forced to pass an oil law favorable to foreign companies while the country remains under occupation.
Now their Senate colleagues must take up the sticky issue.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), a Democratic presidential candidate, has been lobbying to have language included in the emergency supplemental war spending bill that will prevent "United States control over any oil resource of Iraq." The Senate Appropriations Committee approved that language in its markup Monday.
"I was concerned that Iraqi suspicions about American aims in Iraq were endangering American lives," Biden said in a statement. "These misperceptions will not be easily changed, but this measure again shows that the American people do not have imperial designs upon Iraq and we won't be there forever."***
Liberal Democrats argue that now is not the time to pressure Iraq to open its resources to foreign oil companies. "We've got to be sure that the Iraqi people don't have a reason to be suspicious of us," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) told The Politico before the House vote. "I think we should make sure that isn't why we're in the war, to secure oil rights. If it is, the White House ought to own up to it."
OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
iraq oil contracts oil concessions iranian revolution islamofascism iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP biden corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law lynn woolsey kucinich professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news