AP: Democrats Slow to Embrace Iraq Study

[Eugene]

The gist of the article is that Congress intends to apply strict oversight
and the power of the purse on the Bush administration rather than
demand a timetable to exit Iraq.

Associated Press
Democrats Slow to Embrace Iraq Study
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY 12.11.06, 3:41 AM ET

Democrats aren't scrambling to endorse recommendations of the bipartisan
Iraq Study Group, a tactic that largely leaves President Bush alone
to salvage the war.

Instead, the party that will control Congress in January plans to focus
on stepped-up oversight of Bush's plans for the war.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who will take over the Armed Services Committee,
says he'll hold three hearings on Bush's plans for Iraq and is prepared
to subpoena documents to review past missteps.

Democrats also are eyeing ways to attach conditions to war funds that won't
hurt troops and may even attract Republican support. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.,
the next chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is considering a plan to
amend the 2002 legislation that authorized the war by adding to it an exit
strategy.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/12/11/ap3243354.html

[rodeodance]

1. too little. They need to be talking of pulling back/out.

[AtomicKitten]

2. there are some good points

but overall not a tremendous amount of substance. The Dems would be better served to offer up their own plan, to be the authors of troop withdrawal ASAP. America expects that of the Democrats; that is the mandate. Democrats would be wise to honor it.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Read Greg Palast's "The Baker Boys Stay Half the Course"

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-baker-boys-stay-half-the-course

The Democrats are well to steer clear of the ISG Report. It is only half what is needed. Also, think of the rats in that group, all connected to law firms that serve Saudi royals. Palast's subtitle: "Iraq Study Group or Saudi Protection League?" His thesis: That the Saudis started the civil war in Iraq by funding Sunni death squads, to which the Shias of Iraq/Iran have responded with their own anti-Sunni death squads. In short, the Saudis/Sunnis are in an oil war with Iran/Shias, to control Iraq's spigot, with our troops as the cannon fodder, keeping a reign on the Shias. What the Saudis said to Cheney, when they summoned him from his Thanksgiving dinner, was a threat to infuse more support of the Iraq Sunnis, if the US withdraws, and create a bloodbath in the M/E, to keep Iran/Shias from controlling Iraq oil. The ISG, ghost-written by the Saudis/Sunnis, is designed to keep US troops in Iraq as a check on the Shias.

It's the most interesting analysis of the situation that I've seen. Suddenly the scales fall from one's eyes, reading Palast. The missing name in the ISG report is "Saudi Arabia"--the true authors of the report.

We've always figured it was an oil war, and that Cheney/Bush Cartel were seeking to dominate the Mideast oil fields. But who are Cheney and the Bush Cartel, but toadies to the Saudi Arabians? The level of treason here is almost beyond belief. The Saudis are not just a factor in this situation. They are authoring US policy. They are calling the shots. They are putting our troops in harms' way. It almost makes you nostalgic for Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who seemed more allied with Israel than the Saudis, and were into "the new AMERICAN century"/Roman Empire. Romans don't particularly dig eastern sultans, except as puppet-kings to serve the Empire. (Oh, yeah, some of them liked the spices from the east and the belly dancers, but real Romans were puritans, into "republican" virtue and bashing heads at the edges of the Empire, where eastern and western "barbarians" didn't know how to build roads, couldn't speak Latin, and let warlords run amok.)

Maybe I'm going too far with this. But could the ouster of Rumsfeld have been a Saudi coup? What Rumsfeld and the NeoCons did, by invading Iraq, was to topple A SUNNI (Saddam) who was keeping the SHIAS (Iran's influence in Iraq) IN CHECK. And now that the Shias are running amok--in response to the Sunnis running amok--the Saudis (Sunnis)--via the Baker/Saudi law firms--have intervened. Let me put this another way: The Saudis of course approved the initial invasion. (Prince Bandar was apprised of the Bush invasion plan before Colin Powell was!) But things have not gone their way, under Rumsfeld. They expected a US-dominated protectorate--a puppet government in Iraq that they could manipulate in their own and Sunni interests. The Shias (the majority in Iraq) would have none of that. They excluded the Sunnis (--in addition to Rumsfeld having killed or exiled all the Sunni professionals in the Saddam government, at the outset). That's when the Saudis began funding the Sunni insurgency--to force the Sunnis back into the government. The Shias (Iran) fought back, wanting total dominance of Iraq's oil fields. Meanwhile, in America, the plebes have become restless, and are threatening to pull the legions back home. The ISG Report (written by the Saudis) is aimed at reasserting Saudi power in Iraq, with our troops as their weapon. It is cleverly written to seem like a drawdown plan--but in truth is the opposite: How to KEEP US forces in Iraq indefinitely--not to "win" anything, and not to serve US interests in any way (not even imperial interests), but to serve. The. Saudia. Arabian. Royal. Family.

Ergo: The Democrats, putative representatives of the plebians on the home front, are in one hell of a sticky mess. They do not dare admit what their spineless selves have allowed to happen. The Saudi tail wagging the US dog. When THEY say the Iraq War is a "failed policy," they mean something different than the ISG means. They mean it has failed to create stability in the Middle East (and obviously DE-stabilized it all) from the point of view of US interest in the oil and also from Israel's point of view. They do NOT mean from the Saudis' point of view. The ISG is speaking from the Saudi point of view--the party that wants to end up with Iraq's oil--muscling out the Iranians (by use of the US military)--as Rumsfeld's plan for a protectorate (puppet government in Iraq) falls apart.

Jeez. Well, interesting times we live in, no?

Here's what I think the Democrats need to do: Elect Al Gore, and get us the hell off oil as fast as we can. (I think we can do it in five years, with Gore as president). Isn't it obvious? All this mayhem and eastern intrigue is about oil. Oil is killing the planet anyway, if we care at all about that (and cow farts are a problem as well, as I recently learned--i.e., beef, milk, as staples of our diet). Alternative energy. Vegan diet. The crazy hippies have been right all along.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Could we just emphasize your last sentence?

"The crazy hippies have been right all along." On behalf of all the crazy hippies everywhere, I thank you.

LTH:hippie:

[Larry Allen]

5. the democrats are starting to make me sick.

They are nibbling around the edges of of the Iraq War Resolution and Appropriations. A strategy which will keep the issue alive and give them something to run on in '08. At the mere cost of 2000 more GI lives, 400,000 more Iraqi lives, 300 billion dollars, and complicity in genocide. The American people voted to get us out of Iraq. The only way to do this is repeal IWR and cut appropriations for the war. Keep up the strategery at the expense of effective action and you will see a massive wholesale abandonment by 2008. The American people are not as stupid as you think.