Biden to Pick Country at Random to Remove US Troops to Show Russia How to Do It

 

In an effort to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden is taking the unprecedented foreign policy step of leading by example and pulling troops out of a country the US has invaded.  

As an added show of good faith, he will choose that country at random by covering his eyes and pointing at a map randomly.

When asked by reporters if any countries will be exempt, he said, "Of course!  We're not going to give up countries that grow our bananas or cocaine, make our clothes for pennies a day, or have natural resources our extraction companies can profit from.  That would just be stupid."

The puzzled press corps asked which countries that left.

"Wherever those Barbery pirates came from, and some of our troops just ran out of gas in Lichtenstein and decided to stay for the Licht festival.

Another reporter asked what would happen if he accidentally pointed to part of the United States.

"Come on, man!  We're not going to give up all that stuff we won from Mexico!  If we did that, where the hell would we go for vacation? Florida? Jesus, it's too damn humid and the alligators would eat my grandkids.

Speaking of Florida, if I happen to land on that, I will return it to the Queen of Spain, but she's gotta take Trump and that Rick DeMentos or whatever the hell his name it. That's non-negotiable."

how to pressure GOP Sen. Stallurker Fascistpants to give up Iraq War, even if he's not your rep

Send them a letter or postcard (email from non-constituents are filtered out) to their campaign headquarters or district offices that simply says,

Dear Sen. or Rep. Stallurker Fascistpants,

My Democratic senator or representative seems to be in no danger of defeat, so I have decided to donate money and/or time to your opponent instead because you are ignoring the will of the American people and continue to support keeping troops in Iraq.

Although you usually win by a comfortable margin, you will probably be defeated since two-thirds (or whatever the current number is) of the American people want us to pull out of Iraq. Since over 70% know the Iraq War is about oil and Alan Greenspan recently confirmed this, I doubt more propaganda will help.

If you actually believe what the Bush administration says about Iraq, consider that every poll of Iraqis, even those taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the British Ministry of Defense show the Iraqis want the occupation to end.

You guys did do a nice job of setting up a democracy in Iraq, and that parliament is showing their independence by demanding mercenaries be withdrawn and that the occupation end.

You are obviously free to do what you want, but if you continue your present course, the GOP could face an epic route in the 2008 election. A defeat on that scale will mean your services as a lobbyist or corporate board member won't be so valuable. Maybe you won't even find another job. Jimmy Carter could use your help building houses for poor people.

Be smart. I know it's painful to give up a cash cow like Iraq that has made so much money for your corporate patrons, but consider it a "corporate restructuring" where you shed divisions that could bankrupt the whole company. If you cut your losses in Iraq, you will still have a seat in Congress and be able to line your and your friends pockets another day in other ways.

Sincerely,



PS: I was going to keep that awkward incident when you misinterpreted my nervous toe-tapping in the mens room between us. Now I'm not so sure.

NOTE: You might want to include a photocopy of your check to the opponent. Black out your address and account number though, so they don't send someone to kill your dog.

WONKETTE: hooker going to Iraq Green Zone says NO troops--private contractors ONLY

Wonkette did a generally snarky piece on sending escorts over to entertain the hired guns, but one part of the escorts post stood out:

My apologies but at this time I am unable to plan any meetings w/active duty military. (*The members of PMC community has an exclusive arrangement during this visit*) Kisses ~Tori

http://wonkette.com/politics/sex-on-the-breach-dept\'/i...

I would not necessarily advocate sending hookers over to Iraq, but if some were going anyway, they should offer their services to every soldier before a single mercenary or dickless ass weasel from Liberty University cowering in the Green Zone while he privatizes Iraq's water or something.

Maybe that's how Democrats could end the war--simply stop funding escorts being flown into the Green Zone until it turns into one big blue ball on the map with the righties begging for the helicopter on the roof to take them home.

Terror expert says Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq

Please inform your righty friends:

EXCERPTS:

Expert: Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq

Published: July 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM

"Al-Qaida also had a much larger force in Afghanistan -- an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300," Carpenter wrote. "It strains credulity to imagine 1,300 fighters -- and foreigners at that -- taking over and controlling a country of 26 million people."

A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.

"Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by the Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population," Carpenter said. "That doesn't suggest a reliable safe haven for al-Qaida."

He blamed al-Qaida's numerous violent attacks in Iraq, mainly on Shiite civilians, for the group's unpopularity in the country. -- Leander Schaerlaeckens, UPI Correspondent

FULL TEXT

FACTS Missing from the Iraq Debate (updated)

NOTE: cross-posted at John Edwards website to make his staffers actually consider bringing it to his attention. Consider doing the same to other candidates.

If Democrats were serious about ending the war, they would make the GOP lies about the war all the more obvious by giving up on vague platitudes and state the facts about Iraq plainly and often.

Some of the facts I have in mind have been covered in the press on page A13 or further back, but have only been acknowledged by a handful of Democrats, not the leadership, and NO republicans.

The main ones: the war is about oil, the Iraqis want us to leave, the insurgency is NOT al Qaeda, and the Iraqi government is only "sovereign" as long as they agree with Bush.

If a member of your family was killed, and the cop assigned to the case never got more detailed in his updates on the case than saying, "Well, he was in a dangerous neighborhood, and we all know what happens there," you would rightly be worried about whether he was actually working the case.

Unfortunately, that is the case with most Democrats and Iraq. While they did an admirable job of exposing the lies about why we went into Iraq, they never dropped the other shoe and loudly explained the truth.

I could almost buy that they are trying to avoid kicking the dragons and quietly back out of the war except for a couple of nagging details--many back the Hydrocarbon Law that Iraqis rightly see as theft of their oil income, and many Democratic withdrawal proposals have massive loopholes about leaving some troops for counter-terrorism, force protection, and training Iraqis

Some of the facts I have in mind have been covered in the press on page A13 or further back, but have only been acknowledged by a handful of Democrats, not the leadership, and NO republicans.

I'm willing to listen to any proposals provided they squarely and upfront acknowledge the FACTs. Conversely, the less I hear about these things, the more I suspect the person talking is lying.

OIL

There is a more grown up, intellectual lie about why we invaded Iraq than the terrorist boogey man that says we went in to ensure access to a cheap source of oil to run our economy. Right wingers Pat Robertson and Tom Friedman said this plainly. Friedman said if the war went well, the price could drop to as little as $6 a barrel.

An additional reason this may have seemed strategically urgent is the world's oil supply has either peaked or is about to, and as it declines, the Middle East will be the last region sucked dry.

I could see why this would make sense to someone and even make some in the Pentagon see a need to play along with the lies because it was in our best interest. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff falls into this camp.

The only problem is, the behavior of the oil companies, the loyalties of the Bushies, and as BBC journalist Greg Palast found, the CIA's top oil analyst all undercut this argument.

And why exactly would oil men want to lower the price of their product, so they have to pay more and work harder to make the same or lower profits?

In fact, they wanted to make sure Saddam didn't pump too much and drive prices down, as even the Oil & Gas Journal said before the war. So we went to war to keep the price at the pump HIGH.

Recent price gouging and record profits by oil companies shows how much they care about the rest of us.

Timeline of oil company machinations regarding Iraq

Detailed study on how Bush's plan for Iraq's oil compares to Gulf neighbors

Restructuring Iraq's oil during a military occupation to favor our oil companies is probably a war crime.


The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55

The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.


The mechanism for giving the bulk of the profits from the oil, up to 80%, to major oil corporations is the Hydrocarbon Law that Democrats included in the benchmarks Iraqis must meet. Iraqi oil workers, scholars, and bureaucrats from the Saddam era strongly oppose this law, and sent a letter to Congress saying so. The vice president of Iraq even said the Hydrocarbon law screws Iraqis.

Screwing Iraqis out of their oil income is so important to the Bushies that they fired Gen. Garner, the first colonial governor of Iraq, when he correctly said delaying elections and privatizing oil would inflame resistance to the occupation.

Watch interview with Jay Garner




IRAQIS WANT US TO LEAVE

80% or more of Iraqis want us to leave according to a British intel commissioned poll. That Brit poll found that only 1% of Iraqis feel safer because we are there.

This is pretty consistent with the spring 2004 polls by Gallup and the Bush appointed CPA. To Jack Murtha's credit, he actually acknowledged these polls in his floor statement.

The Gallup poll in Spring 2004 found that 57% of Iraqis wanted us to leave immediately, and 71% viewed us as occupiers not liberators.

The Bush appointed CPA poll spring 2004 had similar results. 86% wanted us to leave after the January 2005 election and 82% viewed us as occupier not liberators.

Even Iyad Allawi, the thug who used to be an enforcer for Saddam that Bush appointed prime minister of the provisional government recently said the human rights situation in Iraq is at least as bad now as it was under Saddam.

At the Cairo Conference on Iraq, the Iraqi participants from all factions agreed that while insurgent attacks on civilians were wrong, those on occupation forces are not.

The war in Iraq has had an even worse effect on opinion of us in the Arab world. While some Americans may still believe the crap and platitudes about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy, few in the Arab world did, and the number is approaching absolute zero. It is not that they oppose democracy or "aren't ready" for it (one of the most racist bipartisan talking points ever) but that they know Bush cares about as much about democracy in the Arab world as he did about black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.




THE INSURGENCY IS NOT AL QAEDA

Israelis and Saudis separately studied our interrogations of foreign fighters captured in Iraq and found that most had no prior connection to al Qaeda and were motivated by our invasion, not religious fundamentalism.

The military admits they inflated al Qaeda and Zarqawi's role in the insurgency for propaganda purposes in both Iraq and the US The military admits they inflated Zarqawi's role in the insurgency for propaganda purposes in both Iraq and the US.

The Iraqis don't like al Qaeda. The Bushies use this to make the leap to say that they don't like all the insurgency. The reality is Iraqis recognize al Qaeda is responsible for attacks on civilians and are trying to inflame sectarian violence, and sectarian violence is one of our excuses for staying.

IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS FAILING BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY SOVEREIGN WHEN THEY AGREE WITH BUSH

The Iraqis are not apes who just descended from the trees, and can't figure out how to put a military and police force together. You might recall that they successfully invaded Kuwait, fought the much bigger Iran to a draw in the 80s, and Bush convinced us they were going to invade the US even without a navy or being able to put a plane in the air without our permission.

Bush fired all the qualified people as soon as we invaded. And the current problem is getting troops and cops to fire on their own people who they know may have a legitimate beef with us being there. Which sounds a hell of a lot like Vietnam. Wasn't that the big plan there? Train the Vietnamese to fight for us in our absence? Although it was never put that bluntly, that's the real problem. When the perception and reality are we are there to screw them out of their natural resources and kill those who protest too much with either airstrikes or death squads, it's going to be tough to find people to consistently fight for us. Those who do are unlikely to be choir boys, and likely inspire even less love for the puppet government.

When the Iraqi government does show signs of independence, Bush pulls on their choke chain HARD. Bush told them to fire their first elected prime minister Jafari, the guy who wanted to meet Noam Chomsky, and he wasn't.

The current prime minister, Maliki has said Bush will FIRE him if he doesn't get the Hydrocarbon Law passed.

The Iraqi parliament has asked to please have a say in whether the occupation continues. Bush and even Congress are very careful about never asking Iraqis what they would prefer, but the Iraqi parliament understands that their legitimacy with their own people depends on asking the US to leave.

I don't expect Republicans to be honest on these issues. Like NASCAR racers, they wear their corporate sponsorship on their sleeve and read the talking points their owners fax them.

I do expect Democrats who want progressives to vote for them to be honest about these issues because too many have divided loyalties with one foot in the corporate camp, and one foot with the American people. Getting them to tell the truth about Iraq is one way to find out if the foot on our side isn't going to be on our neck if they get elected.

My response to Carl Levin fundraising letter: Do more than just harm me less than GOP

I just got the below email from Carl Levin and it really irked me--Democrats may not be as bad as republicans on a lot of issues, but that is very far from reflecting the true wishes of the American people.

So I sent him this letter.

Feel free to do the same at his DC office or the address he wrote from "the Friends of Carl Levin" or go to his website.

Sen. Levin,

I appreciate the oversight hearings the Democrats have been doing since winning in November, but they are failing abysmally to do the two things Democrats want most: remove Bush & Cheney, and end the war in Iraq. Not only have you failed to take meaningful action on either of those two, you even failed to effectively block or even protest much their plans to invade Iran.

Frankly, you guys seem to take opinions and welfare of average Americans about as seriously as you do designating a national butterfly. You give us non-binding resolutions and empty platitudes. But when defense and oil companies come knocking, you hand out hundreds of billions of dollars and spill oceans of American and Iraqi blood.

If the Democrats want my money, they have to do more than just screw me 3% less than the GOP.

Love,

I think I'm a little impatient with him in light of a big lie he told about Iraq a few years back, that made it look like Democrats were knowingly complicit in the corporate looting of Iraq.

The Michigan senator, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a frequent visitor to Iraq, said that one of the few points on which the main Iraqi ethnic and sectarian political groups agree was that all want U.S. forces to remain in the country. The Bush administration should use that consensus to forge political compromise, Levin argued.

http://whatiraqiswant.blogspot.com

Levin also supported the benchmarks in the Iraq Appropriations bill including demanding that Iraqis pass the Hydrocarbon Law that gives up to 80% of their oil income to oil companies, was drafted by oil company lobbyists and forced on the Iraqis by Bush. That law is not only a prima facie war crime, it will incite more hatred of the US in Iraq and the Arab world. Wasn't the excuse for invading REDUCING terrorism? But people like Levin, just like the Bushies, think we won't notice.

These douchebags think that like the right we will lap up whatever symbolic gestures they make toward our priorities, and not notice that they are whoring themselves to the same interests the GOP does.

carl levin democrats complicit iraq impeachment chamber of commerce fundraising republican GOP conservative corruption professor smartass iraq democrat corporationfascism democracy smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Iraqi parliament demands vote to end occupation

The Iraqi parliament seems to understand democracy better than our congress.

They demanded the authority to approve or disapprove of extending the occupation in December, and plan not to renew it. If they did renew, it would only be in exchange for a binding timeline for withdrawal.

From the Al Jazeera article:

Iraqi politicians have passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission before asking the UN to extend the mandate for US-led forces in Iraq.

The measure was approved on Tuesday and reflects a growing disenchantment with the US-backed government.

The Sadrist-drafted resolution passed with a vote of 85 to 59.

The members of parliament voted along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, and another Shia party at odds with the leadership.

FULL TEXT

From Alternet.org:

...lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "There will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the U.N. mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

FULL TEXT

Associated Press story on vote
(insulting to Iraqis)




iraq parliament timetable iraq war pullout president george w bush occupation colonialism withdrawal professor smartass iraq corporation democracy war on terror worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

TOON: the anti-war party?

Apologies to Tom Tomorrow:
(his old toon, my new words).

Click pic to see full sized

this modern world tom tomorrow goofus gallant iraq war wmd terrorism oil withdrawal president george w bush cartooneditorial cartoon dlc democratic leadership council republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democratlies peak oil propaganda corporationfascism democracy public relations foreign policy al qaeda northwoods worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard humor comedy funny smartass comments resistance censored news rebel iraq appropriation bill

SIROTA: Final Insult: Dems Brag to Press About Deceiving the Public on Iraq

I would rather have my most cynical suspicions proven wrong.

But it doesn't happen very often.

KEY EXCERPTS:

Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.

Friday, May 25, 2007

The Final Insult: Dems Brag to Press About Deceiving the Public on Iraq

And here's the worst part of it all - Democrats are now bragging about it. Not only have they sent out a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising email attempting to confuse voters by claiming with a straight face that they really stood up to President Bush. But most insulting of all, they are actually running to reporters to pat themselves on the back for engineering a procedural pirouette designed to confuse the public. Here's the Post again:

"But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker's contortions. Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about...Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats. 'It was the responsible thing to do, and she's a responsible speaker,' said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.)."

This is what we're dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.

FULL TEXT:
http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/t...

POEM FOR DEM SURRENDER: Ballad of the Dry Powder

I wrote the poem below for some past democratic capitulation when they hadn't even bothered with the token resistance they put up this time.

It is no longer enough to email, write, or call your congressman and senators. You must GO to their LOCAL OFFICE.

Every congressman has an office in their district, and every senator has offices a spread around the state so constituents can go their to be patronized and ignored in person.

Don't make an appointment or dress up, just show up and ask a couple of questions:

• When will you end the war?

• When will you impeach Bush?

You don't have to yell or argue, but when the staffer finishes handing you a hatful of bullshit, simply say, "Do you believe that yourself?"

Our system is profoundly broken when we have to scream and stamp our feet to get our elected representatives to actually represent us. Before we can fix it, we need to make these steaming sacks of shit in neckties fear us more than Wall Street or the corporations whose boards they hope to sit on when they leave Congress.

Find their office and go.

FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

FIND YOUR SENATOR

Ballad of the Dry Powder

When we fought King George, Colonel Harry Reid was sent to gaurd a mountain pass.
He had twenty men, the high ground, and a good view of all possible routes of attack,
but just one small keg of gunpowder for all their muskets blasts.

Each soldier would have powder to let just ten bullets fly.
General Washington gave thought to this when he bid them good-bye.
He said, "Take care boys, and keep your powder dry!"
He would soon regret those words for they led good men to die.

One night as Reid's boys were sitting around the campfire at their post up in the pass,
a grizzly bear got scent of them and into their camp crashed.
Johnny grabbed his musket and aimed at the bear's boulder of a head,
but before he squeezed the trigger, Col. Reid jumped up and said,
"Stand fast! Our bullets are for Redcoats, save our powder for them instead!"
Johnny held his fire and the bear tore out his throat.

As the bear began to eat him, the other soldiers grabbed their guns,
but Reid said, "Fight him if you must, but no bullets should let fly!
Washington has ordered we must keep our powder dry."

So they turned their muskets round and swatted with the butts,
they pulled their Bowie knives and they tried to slash his guts.
The bear just took the beating, but he would stand the cuts.
He turned on his attackers clawing flesh and chewing heads.
By the time that he was finished, half Reid's men were lying dead.

Reid thought it a victory for that keg was tight and dry.
Every bit of powder meant another Redcoat boy would die.

When the dead were buried, and the night lightened to day,
The watch saw Indians approaching with warpaint and sharpened blades.
Bob whispered to Reid, "They are fighting for the crown."
"That may be so," said Reid, "but when Redcoats come around,
we need every bit of powder to shoot each soldier down."

Bob was going to answer when a bullet hit his lung.
The Indians weren't as stingy with their own powder drum.
Harry took the powder and he began to run.
Half his men were killed again,
just five left from when he had begun.

"Now we can fight," he said.
"We have plenty for each gun."

As the day was fading and they lay up there in wait,
a half dozen Redcoats approached them, lined up perfect in their sights.

Tom pulled back his hammer and almost fired a shot,
but Harry grabbed his barrel and said this squad need not be fought.
"A bigger army's coming, and no powder can be lost."

"But if we all are dead, then who will fire the shot?"
Tom tried to wrest rifle, but in the struggle it went off.
The Redcoats were upon them, and then all five were caught.

While he tied their hands, the British sargeant asked why they hadn't fired a shot.
Harry Reid said nice and loudly, "I cannot tell a lie,
Gen. Washington himself told me to keep my powder dry."

"But if you shot the bear, your men would have lived to fight.
And if you shot the Indians, and put a bullet in my eye,
you could have stole our powder and have more to be kept dry."

The soldier took his bayonet, and Harry had to die.
Then he killed the others,but man he told to fly,
and take with him the powder keg
with Reid's head in it to keep the powder dry.

harry reid vichy dem oil president george w bush dlc democratic leadership council corruption occupation colonialism white mans burden professor smartass democratlies peak oil corporation fascism impeach impeachment withdrawal democracy worst president ever failure war criminal idiot iraq appropriation bill smartass comments resistance censored news

Iraqi parliament EXACTLY RIGHT to go on vacation

There seems to be a bipartisan bitching point about the Iraqi parliament going on a two month vacation, but the Iraqis are doing exactly the right thing.

Remember when the Texas legislature was doing that mid-census redistricting, and Democrats fled to deprive them of a quorum?

Iraqis may have figured out that is the best way to deprive Bush of the Hydrocarbon Law that will rob Iraq of its oil wealth.

If the Iraqis bring it to a vote now and defeat it, Bush will figure out some way to dissolve parliament and install a govenment that wil do his bidding. Maliki has already said if the Hydrocarbon Law doesn't pass, he will be out of job because Bush will withdraw his support. For Maliki and the parliament, it's not hard to imagine that displeasure coming in the form of a terrorist attack or a death squads making some midnight visits with a list of those who voted against the bill.

If the Iraqi parliament votes FOR the Hydrocarbon Law, that midnight visit will be from the insurgents.

So rather than make a decision that could cost them their lives either way, they go on vacation, and put it on the back burner.

And every day, Bush and his war get less popular here, and therefore Bush is less powerful. In two month, the polite suggestions for a withdrawal timetable in the Democratic bill could have solidified with public support into a mandatory timetable, and Congress may have gotten around to investigating the role of oil companies in lobbying for the overthrow of Saddam, and drafting the plan for privatizing everything in Iraq that probably constitutes a war crime under the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/search?q=geneva
(scroll down for relevant excerpts)

Maybe some Democrats besides Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott and a handful of others will decide to show us the courtesy of talking honestly on camera about the role big oil played in this war.

Like the memo Condi got telling her to cooperate with the energy task force in “the review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-wh...

I think the Iraqi parliament has even passed a non-binding resolution of their own on the withdrawal of our troops, just like the slow boil tactic used by Democrats in Congress.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624

Maybe Bush will end up keeping his promise about democratizin' Iraq--but he won't be happy if he does.

OIL motive for IRAQ WAR resources

iraq oil contracts oil concessions hydrocarbon law vacation 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 dennis kucinich condi occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law withdrawal kucinich professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

POLL: Iraqis want US out of Iraq

I missed this PIPA poll when it came out in September 2006.

The results are pretty straight forward, and despite the foreign policy establishments talking point about civil war and an even greater bloodbath after the US pulls out, Shia and Sunni Iraqis seem to roughly agree on wanting the US out and agree that it will result in a more peaceful Iraq. They also agree that we won't leave even if asked to.

All charts from PIPA.








The numbers in this chart shows the difference between January and September 2006. Most troubling is that the Shia (the largest ethnic group in Iraq) went from a minority approving of attacks on US forces to a solid 62% majority.



Link to PIPA poll report

What Iraqis think of Bush's OIL THEFT law he is forcing on them

Earlier polls of Iraqis on the occupation

Why Bush will never pull out of Iraq (like a monkey with a nut in a bottle)

This picture was taken with a hidden camera in his natural habitat (his enclosure at his parents Kennebunkport compound).

click to see full-sized

video version

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html

iraq war terrorism oil bonobo president george w bush barrel of oil real reasons cartooneditorial cartoon photoshop occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq propaganda corporation political opinion islamofascism george w bush war on terror false flag cointelpro northwoods worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard bottle video photoshop fascist chimp youtube movie humor comedy funny nazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

End Iraq War with 41 not 60 votes the GOP way

The filibuster is a nice procedural trick where the minority can block legislation from being taken up by holding the floor so nothing can go forward.

The GOP was not afraid to filibuster during the Clinton era, and was so afraid of Democrats filibustering their supreme court nominees that they threatened to do away with the filibuster if they tried to use it.

The one thing you can say in the GOP's favor is that they are willing to go balls to the wall, bet it all, then when they lose, double down.

The Democrats by contrast have gotten a little bolder in their words since gaining the majority but seem convinced the Republican minority can hamstring them with a filibuster if they try to do anything substantive.

I wish to fuck they had thought of borrowing some of those tactics the last six years.

But then, I don't think they are being careful of Republican feelings but of the money interests behind the scenes that choose the range of choices we get:

• Would you like your war with humanitarian window dressing?
  
  
• Self defense window dressing?
  
  
• Democracy spreading pablum?
  
  
• or would you prefer bare-faced looting and slaughter?
  

It's like going to IHOP. You have your choice of syrup, but you're going to get pancakes, and you better damn well like them.

KEY EXCERPTS:




It Only Takes 41 Senate Votes to End the War. Republicans Show the Way.
Filibuster to End the War Now!

By JOHN V. WALSH

We hear over and over again that it "takes 60 votes to get something serious done in the Senate." That is a lot of malarkey. It takes only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill. And then it takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster and prevent any proposed law from coming to the floor.

Thus, the present authorization for defense funding in the coming fiscal year can be stopped cold if it contains funds for the war on Iraq. And this can be done by just one courageous Senator, backed by 40 colleagues.

Let me propose the following scenario. Just one Senator, Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd, arises in the Senate and declares that he will filibuster the present defense authorization bill if it contains funds for the war on Iraq or Iran. That bill is then dead unless there are 60 votes (3/5 of the 100 Senators) to end the debate, i.e., to invoke cloture. That is it. Bush no longer has the funds to prosecute the war. He has to come back with a funding bill acceptable to the 41.

At the same time the filibustering Senator could put forth a resolution similar to Congressman McGovern's in the House, which is aptly named "The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act." It provides funds to ensure the withdrawal of U.S, forces from Iraq in a way that guarantees their safety, and no other funding for the war. If the opponents of our hypothetical, courageous Senator wish to oppose such legislation, let them go on record in so doing. They are then on record as refusing funds to bring the troops safely home.

THE REST:
http://counterpunch.com/walsh02082007.html

budget funding president george w bush colonialism white mans burden professor smartass corporation fascism democracy war on terror public opinion opinion poll foreign policy al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot filibuster smartass comments

Senate will investigate Iraq OIL deals Jan. 23! tell them screwing Iraqis = more terrorism

I almost missed this at the very end of her article on the oil machinations in Iraq:

On January 23, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will hold a hearing to investigate "oil and reconstruction strategy in Iraq." This offers a critical opportunity to demand a cessation of all U.S. government and corporate influence over Iraqis as to the future of their oil.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/19/its_still_a...

One way to partially atone for the harm the Bushies have done Iraq is to ensure that have an oil law that no Iraqi or any of their neighbors could claim exploits Iraq for the benefit of the oil companies. PSAs would tell the whole Arab world that we really did go in there to steal the oil and despite any protest from Democrats or our future pullout, it will appear our government was fully behind it if they are allowed to go into effect.

While most Americans are unaware of what's going on in Iraq on this issue (and know even less about how little we get for our own oil) people in the Arab world and other oil producing countries do. In the 1950s, the elected president of Iran was overthrown for driving too hard a bargain and closer to home, one of the reasons the Bushies backed a coup against Hugo Chavez was because he wouldn't take a deal that gave just 1% of the profits from oil to Venezuela.

If our elected officials were at all concerned about their "War on Terrorism," they would realize this would inflame hatred against the US for decades to come.

It is imperative that you tell your senators this and senate foreign relations committee:

Find your senators:

http://senate.gov /

And as many of these guys you have time for:

http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html


OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html


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 conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

Gen. Odom on why we should pull out of Iraq fast

Lately, only retired generals are willing to speak honestly about Iraq in stark contrast to the blind cheerleading of most republicans and the evasion, equivocation, and me-tooism of most Democrats.

He also offers a more realistic and fact-based assessment of Iran compared to drumbeat for war of the administration.

I would only add a couple of things where he didn't go quite far enough:

Our presence in Iraq incites terrorism and gives recruiters for terrorists a recruiting tool. Israel and Saudi studied debriefings of captured foreign fighters in Iraq and found that most were motivated not by radical Islam but outrage at seeing what has been done to the Iraqi people. LINK

His point on the Iraqi troops likewise doesn't go quite far enough. We pretend they aren't standing up because of them being too dense or cowardly to absorb our training, as if Iraqis are apes who just descended from the trees. But the reality is they are hesitant because they are fighting for us against their own people. Many if not most showed up for the paycheck so they can feed their families, but there are limits to what people will do for money.

The biggest element he left out though is that the Iraqis do not believe we are there to look out for their interests or spread democracy however much Americans think or wish that's what we are doing. The Bush administration went in with a plan to privatize and sell off everything possible, and even pumped oil unmetered after we first invaded. Most Americans don't know that, but it's harder to miss when it's right in front of your face.

This war has nothing to do with preventing terrorism--it is creating it by pursuing private gain for oil, defense, and rebuilding corporations on our tax dime (or rather 10 trillion dimes) and with our troops and Iraqis lives.

KEY EXCERPTS:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/odom/odom.html

Cut and Run? You Bet.

By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom

Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers—precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups’ turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.

Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.

FULL TEXT:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/odom/odom.html

[tagname]

Gen. William E. Odom withdraw iraq war cut and run terrorism oil iran president george w bush support the troops morale privatizationunmetered oil greg palast al qaeda republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democratpeak oil propaganda corporation war on terror muslim public opinion opinion public relations foreign policy al qaeda false flag northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

99% of Iraqis vs. "elected" liars

One percent of Iraqis say occupation is making them safer in a recent British intel commissioned poll. That's probably less than the margin of error.

Past polls have shown similar overwhelming opposition to the occupation:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-were-teaching-iraqis-democracy-what.html

There are two depressing implications to this story.

One is that the elected prime minister of Iraq begs us to stay in the same in article, leading me to wonder how legitimate their democracy is when their leader can ignore numbers like this.

Worse, is what it says about our democracy. I expect Republicans to support the war. That is what they are paid to do. But I do not expect Democrats to not only ignore the wishes of the American people about pulling out of Iraq, but also lie to us about the situation there as Sen. Carl Levin did yesterday in this LA Times story:

The Michigan senator, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a frequent visitor to Iraq, said that one of the few points on which the main Iraqi ethnic and sectarian political groups agree was that all want U.S. forces to remain in the country. The Bush administration should use that consensus to forge political compromise, Levin argued.

FULL TEXT OF LA TIMES ARTICLE

It is not enough to vote for Democrats and expect everything will be swell. While they will be better on civil rights and domestic policy, in foreign policy, the leaders of the party seem just as eager to use our tax dollars to steal and kill for corporate America, actions we do not profit from in any way.

KEY EXCERPTS:

Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/10/2005)

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed.

But Iraq's President Jalal Talabani pleaded last night for British troops to stay. "There would be chaos and perhaps civil war," he said. "We are now fighting a world war launched by terrorists against civilisation, against democracy, against progress, against all the values of humanity.

"If British troops withdrew, the terrorists would say, 'Look, we have imposed our will on the most accomplished armed forces in the world and terror is the way to oblige the Europeans to surrender to us'."

FULL TEXT

iraq war wmd terrorism oil cindy sheehan president george w bush fascist real reasons telegraph dlc democratic leadership council republican GOPconservative corruption occupation halliburton colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democrat lies peak oil propaganda corporation fascism democracy political opinion george w bush, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, al qaeda terrorist Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops, worst president ever failure war criminal