Playing Politics With the Iraq War Brings Out the Worst in the Duopoly

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22345

Playing Politics With the Iraq War Brings Out the Worst in the Duopoly
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-05-10 14:55. Congress

Both Parties Attempt to Shift the Blame to Iraqis Rather Than Accept Their Shared Responsibility for the Iraq Quagmire
By Kevin Zeese

The 2008 elections for Congress and the presidency seem to be the dominant domestic factor in determining the outcome of the Iraq War. The Democrats are using the war to position themselves to win the presidency and expand their majority. The Republicans are trying to keep their base happy until it is too late for incumbents to be challenged. And, the president is using his veto power to show he is still the “decider” not Congress.

One thing both parties agree on – blame the Iraqis rather than take responsibility for a catastrophic quagmire. The leadership of both parties are complicit in supporting the war. Bush certainly led us into war based on lies, but the Democrats knew they were lies as Sen. Dick Durbin admitted last week on the Senate floor, but voted in favor of the use of force resolution. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/899/151/. Bush has mismanaged the war but the Democrats have voted for all of the more than $400 billion in funding he has asked for.

The other thing the duopoly agrees on – push the Iraqis to pass an oil law that divides Iraq’s oil wealth between western oil companies and Iraq, while falsely saying it is to divide the oil wealth among Iraqis. The pressure for passage of the oil law shows the real purpose of the invasion of Iraq all along was to ensure that western oil companies get more than their fair share of the trillion dollars in profit that will come from Iraq’s immense oil fields. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/900/164/.

The Democrats are walking a tightrope. They are trying to convince their anti-war base, which dominates the party, that they want to end the war. But, the anti-war movement is actually reading the bills and not buying their rhetoric and media summary. The Democratic bill does not end the war. The bill offered a non-binding, exit dates that only covered “combat” troops (less than half the troops in Iraq) and provided loopholes to keep combat troops in Iraq that essentially describe what the troops are currently doing, e.g., protect U.S. interests (especially long-term bases, the embassy, and perhaps also the oil fields that U.S. companies will control), fight terrorists and al-Qaeda, and train Iraqi soldiers. This is not an exit from Iraq it is an extension of the war. Further, the failure to put up any requirement that Bush seek approval from Congress before military action against Iran means the Democrats approach is more likely to lead to a larger war than to the end of the Iraq war.

One thing the Democrats phony end the war efforts have done is shown who the real peace movement is. Unfortunately the establishment media doesn’t get it or does not want to get it. They label groups that are essentially Democratic Party PACS, MoveOn.org, VoteVets and unions, as the anti-war movement. These groups have provided cover to the Democrats to extend the war in by supporting the Democrats approach (is it a surprise that Democratic leaning PACS support the Democrats?). The real peace movement, made up of thousands of local and national groups, has consistently opposed the Democratic strategy. See, e.g. http://democracyrising.us/content/view/904/164/.

The Democrats will get a sense of their failure to fool the anti-war movement when demonstrations against them continue this summer. Already more than 200 demonstrators have been arrested occupying the offices of Democratic legislators. This summer a coalition of peace organizations have announced a SWARM on Congress beginning on May 14 and extending through July 31 that will escalate opposition to the Democrats failure to end the war. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/902/151/. In 2008 Democrats should not expect the peace movement to sit quietly if they run a presidential candidate who does not oppose the war and has not taken action to end the war. A Democrat who is weak on ending the war should expect anti-war protesters to be campaigning at their public events.

more...

[rodeodance]

1. Cutting off funding is the way to go-if not do it-----troops continue to die-plain

and simple.

[greyghost]

2. Exactly

The troops will be in Iraq until our graandchildren are on Medicare.

The only real question is if they will just be guarding the oil fields or propping up BushCo's puppet government.

[Monkeyman]

3. K&R

[bonito]

4. K&R! n/t