Greens: 1, republicans: -1, Democrats: ?????

[welshTerrier2]

this is not a post supporting the Green Party. this is not a post about "purists". this is not a post about Ralph Nader. this is not a post about how there's no difference between Democrats and republicans. this is not a post about throwing away your vote on a third party.

this is a post APPLAUDING THE GREEN PARTY ON ONE ISSUE AND STRONGLY REBUKING MOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THEIR SILENCE !!!!!

there is no excuse for not respecting the national sovereignty of the Iraqi people. either we are going to allow corporations to direct American foreign policy or we are going to fight against their control. silence is a policy decision and a very bad one at that.

here's a press release from the Green Party printed in full:

Greens Support Iraqis Protesting The Oil Law Benchmark
The Oil Law, Instead of Bringing Peace, Will Allow US and UK Energy Companies To Plunder Iraqi Oil, Say Greens


WASHINGTON - JULY 19 - Green Party leaders declared their support for the tens of thousands of Iraqis, including labor unions, who are protesting the Iraqi oil law 'benchmark' that the Bush Administration and supporters are seeking to impose as a condition for reconstruction aid.

On July 16, Iraqis took to the streets of Basra in a demonstration organized by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions against the proposed law, which would place 2/3 of Iraqi oil under foreign control, granting 30-year contracts to US and UK energy corporations for 'development' of Iraq's oil resources.

"The oil law is nothing more than a scheme to allow the US and Britain to pillage Iraq's source of wealth," said TE Smith, black Vietnam War veteran and member of the DC Statehood Green Party. "The oil law benchmark confirms exactly what antiwar protesters have said all along -- that President Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq were largely motivated by 'blood for oil.' Iraqis are right to fear that the oil law will mark a return to the days of colonial plunder by western nations."

The Bush Administration, with bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of most Democratic presidential candidates, is pressing the Iraqi Parliament to pass the oil law. The law would overturn Iraqi legislation passed in 1961 and 1973 to ensure that the Iraqi people enjoyed control over and profits from their own oil resources.

"Democratic and Republican politicians alike want the Iraqi oil law passed, because they care more about profits for ExxonMobil, Shell, and ChevronTexaco than they do about peace, democracy, and the well-being of the Iraqi people," said Nancy Allen, member of the Maine Green Party and the party's Peace Action Committee (GPAX). "Democrats are talking about passage of the oil law as a necessary step towards withdrawal of US troops. The Green Party demands that US troops be ordered home immediately with no such conditions, that the US recognize that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and that we as Americans seek safe and clean alternatives to fossil fuel energy."

The Green Party of the United States has opposed the war on Iraq ever since President Bush announced invasion plans in late 2002, and has called for the impeachment of Mr. Bush and Vice President Cheney for numerous abuses of power, including deceiving the American people about the reasons for waging war on Iraq.

Greens have also sharply criticized Democratic Party leaders and presidential candidates for supporting the Bush Administration on the invasion and occupation, for offering belated and vague plans for a delayed pullout of US armed forces from Iraq, and for voting in support of continued funding for the Iraq War.

"The occupation of Iraq is very likely to continue whether we elect Democrats or Republicans to the White House and Congress in 2008," said Kat Swift, spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus of the Green Party. "If the Iraqi Parliament succumbs to US pressure and passes the oil law, it'll require a 30-year commitment of US military personnel to protect western corporate interests in Iraq. We're urging all Americans who desire peace, stability, and justice for the people of Iraq to contact their Representatives and Senators and demand that the benchmark be dropped."

[William769]

1. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what? It's probably a duck. NT

[welshTerrier2]

4. blind loyalty is a policy choice too

you seem to be quacking like a duck.

[William769]

7. Please show me where I have blind loyalty.

I got a 100 bill says you can't.

[welshTerrier2]

8. well, i'll tell you how i interpreted your post if that's what you mean

i took your "walks like a duck" comment to be a criticism of anything and everything the Greens say regardless of what they actually say. that's an ad hominem argument that reeks of "the other guys are always wrong no matter what they say". I call that blind loyalty.

since you didn't actually write anything in the body of your post and just provided your drive by "n/t", I would suggest that we're left trying to understand what the hell you meant because you failed to explain yourself very well.

so, let's try to do just a little bit better, shall we? here's the straight-forward question: do you agree with the Green's point that the US should support the Iraqi labor unions in their protest against the Iraqi Oil Law that the US is pushing? also, do you agree with the OP that most Democrats have remained silent on the subject?

[William769]

9. I only posted that because of this.

"this is not a post supporting the Green Party. this is not a post about "purists". this is not a post about Ralph Nader. this is not a post about how there's no difference between Democrats and republicans. this is not a post about throwing away your vote on a third party."

Was just to good to pass up. :)


ON EDIT: since drive bys are a common occurance on Du, I just like to fit in. And for the record I don't agree with anythig a greenie says, that does not mean that I disagree though.

[Sonicmedusa]

12. Why don't you answer the questions?

Or are you only into "hit and run"?

[William769]

13. I thought I did.

:shrug:

[Sonicmedusa]

14. Never mind.....I forgot you support Hillary.

I think that pretty much says it all.

[William769]

15. Yep supporting the winner always says it all.

:hi:

[William769]

16. Self delete, dupe.

[frogcycle]

2. agreed

by our silence we are complicit in the modern-day equivalent of the rape and pillage by the Vikings, or the Huns, or whomever.

demanding 80% of their oil is piracy, pure and simple. We've all known it all along; the recently-released documents merely serve to provide the hard evidence. cheney is Blackbeard.

[Sonicmedusa]

5. All but a very few Dems are speaking out about this

And the ones who are not ARE COMPLICIT.

Even here at DU, this is getting very little attention.

If the Dems on the hill sre serious about getting out of Iraq, they would be making big noise about this. There is no way to get out of Iraq with the Iraq Oil Theft Law. This bill will only keep us in Iraq indefinately.

Good for the Greens, they make me proud to be an American.

[Nite Owl]

3. The Greens were the ones there

pushing for a recount in '04 when the dems walked away from that too. If only they would stay with the dems instead of being such a small party they would be a huge help to the progressive wing of the party. We sure need them to counter the DLC and Blue Dog dems.

[welshTerrier2]

6. exactly !!

and we are not going to make any progress by remaining silent on the Oil Law.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. They need their own Oil Law working out distribution among themselves

They don't need America telling them who to do business with or how. A political settlement that allows each of the major ethnic/religious groups inside Iraq to put bitter conflicts over division of oil revenues behind them is needed for the sake of Iraq's people. I hope that is what they come up with, and that they completely seperate a formular for proportional sharing of revenues within Iraq from any and all specific oil deals with international corporations. It is criminal if the U.S. is pushing Iraq to combine those two matters into one legislative agreement. One should have nothing to do with the other.

The Greens have this right.

[welshTerrier2]

17. who could say this better?

certainly not me ...

the Maliki government is a bush puppet ... even if the Maliki government were not a bush puppet, they would have to be seen as one because we have occupied Iraq for more than 4 years now. nothing, diplomatic or otherwise, that happens in Iraq while the US remains in occupation should be viewed without an ultimate skepticism.

You're dead on the money saying the Greens have this right. What say you about the Democrats' silence? In fact, what say you about whether the Democrats are 100% complicit with bush's imperial oil grab? I don't see how I can interpret this any other way. I really don't. To be silent in the face of such an explicit international crime, i.e. such blatant theft of Iraq's most treasured resource, just doesn't pass the smell test. And sadly, if I took that one step farther, I would ask just what the underlying value system of the Democratic Party is. This Oil Law business requires the Democrats to be on one side or the other; silence is a choice and a very bad choice.

Can anyone defend this silence? I just don't see how.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. There is almost an unwritten line in the sand, beyond which greed becomes blatent

As much as I wish me you and several million of our idealistic friends could right the way the world operates through a powerful call for decency and justice, I know we have to pick our fights to an extent. I guess what I am saying is that it would have been unrealistic to think that the U.S. government, or any goverment for that matter which for good or evil reasons risked some of it's treasure and resources fighting a war, would not later expect some "special considerations" in light of their "efforts" and, ahem, physical presense.

That's business as usual and it happens all the time, and not just in war scenarios. If the U.S. grants China some little diplomatic bone that they highly desire, sudenly Boeing wins a big contract to supply dozens of airplanes to China. This situation however is much bolder, much more crass, much more a one sided bullying of a party that has few resourses with which to resist demands made of them. It looks more like rape than low level extortion.

There is an opening here for Democrats to point out that one reason why the U.S. is mistrusted inside Iraq is the fear that we are there only to pillage Iraq's resources. It goes along with the need for the U.S. to be explicit that we seek no permanent bases inside Iraq and the need for our actions to reflect that stand. A little "special consideration" wink wink nod nod, I suspect most Iraqi's could understand and even tolerate that, those types of arrangements plays out in people's personal life also. But not outright theft of most of Iraq's natural resourses. That is an invitation to armed resistance to Americans inside of Iraq and Democrats should be able to make that point without fatal political harm befalling them.

Some Democrats probably are complicit, others distracted, others indifferent to the further suffering of Iraq's people when they don't see how championing this issue will move the ball forward for them, either in a personal self centered political sense or in helping Democrats gain a political advantage over Republicans over Iraq.

It is much more than sad.

[welshTerrier2]

23. plain and simple values

when we look at US government policy, we see a very close working relationship between business and government. in many ways, many businesses are heavily dependent on the US government as a direct customer or as a policy-setting agent that helps them acquire new customers and new resources.

we often hear stereotypes of "the left" that argue the left hates commerce or hates businesses "being in bed with" government. much of that is true. but it's not true as an underlying principle; it's true do to failed implementation.

what does this mean?

it means that few would question a symbiosis between business and government if the objectives were designed to truly help the American people and if the objectives were not undertaken merely to serve a greedy few. for example, if the US government were to put real money and effort into developing alternative fuel technologies to combat global warming, I think "the left" would be very supportive. on the other hand, what we've really hidden behind the government-business revolving door is collusion to cater to Big Oil and the auto industry and resist air pollution standards, resist CAFE standards, provide beneficial tax giveaways and subsidies to Big Oil and wage war in Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, to boost Big Oil's bottom lines. They've experienced all time record profits since the invasion began.

this is not the kind of symbiosis anyone should support because we, as Americans, have a sense of right and wrong and we do not believe that we have a right to steal Iraqi oil for the benefit of the oil companies. The policy fails to reflect American values. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are not even aware what the PSA's actually do and why they are nothing but a raping of Iraq and the Iraqi people. A real opposition party would stand up loudly and clearly to give Americans the information they need. In doing so, they would not be seen as "weak on defense." They would be seen as honoring what most Americans believe is the right thing to do. And Americans understand all too well that the Oil Laws are not for their benefit; they know who's going to rake in the bucks.

even politics does not seem to adequately explain the Democrats' complicity on this issue. it seems pretty clear to me that directly challenging bush and Big Oil would be more politically popular. and if not politics, what explanation beyond complicity can there be? it pains me to say that. as you said so well, "it is much more than sad." The truth is, I wish someone could provide me with a better explanation; I'm afraid it's all too clear why they can't ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Those who are not directly complicit are dependent

With the media no longer responsible to actually cover news or to pretend to be even handed, and with the public now acclimated to "news" as just another form of reality TV with a hand picked cast of designated newly minted "celebrities" covered 24/7, there is no free guarenteed media coverage on the issues in the platform that any candidate seeks to run on. There essentially is no guarenteed media coverage period. So candidates have to cater their campaigns to what the media wants to cover and/or they have to be filthy rich or be friends with a lot of wealthy people to amass a massive campaign war chest that allows them to get their own message out.

Factor in that each year the political season now starts earlier which means that candidates have to support large staff, travel, and media budgets for ever longer periods of time, which means they need to raise more money to play in the game. Increasingly there are more vested interests that candidates can't afford to oppose, even if voters would appreciate their oppositional stance if they somehow managed to learn about them.

The system functions just fine with the oddball collection of exceptions to the rule independent politicians who somehow manage to get elected to a scattering of seats due to their family name, celebrity from a prior career, atypical district they are running from and/or their remarkably talented hard working briliant campaign machine coupled with their superior native ability to connect well with voters. In todays harshly controlled economic political climate the odds of a large enough group of such mavericks managing to hold office at one time in one body to be meaningful is remote. And the odds that such a person could mount a successful nation wide Presidential campaign without making sufficient compromises is just as remote.

[welshTerrier2]

25. a giant would crush these dwarfs

i don't necessarily disagree that we are playing against very, very long odds. i'm quite a bit less tolerant about media bias than I read in your post, however. Certainly, even the weakest, most unknown candidate, at least those able to appear on the debate platform, have some access. They all have websites. They all have newsletters or mailing lists. And, they all could say almost anything they wanted, albeit very limited in time, at the debates. At most debates, each candidate is given a little time for opening remarks and closing remarks. If they wanted to stand up and speak the truth, no one is stopping them.

And it's not even clear the biased, corporate, overly centralized and controlled MSM would stop them either. Those who appear on the bullshit shows like Hardball probably would be frequent guests if they actually dared to say something a wee bit controversial. Shows like that are all about verbal combat and sensationalism. I don't see them as suppressive although access to them is far too limited and the quality of discourse is not really tolerable.

As for the media control and the money and the rest of the defects in our electoral process, I think a "movement person", i.e. someone who is seen as passionately leading a cause, would bring some powerful counter-factors to the table. In this election, that player is Al Gore. That's not an endorsement but it is an acknowledgment that Gore would immediately have "standing". He would have full access to the talk shows. He would be able to get his message out although, of course, they'd start in with all the "invented the internet idiocy" again. We'll always have to battle that kind of garbage.

When we put a "movement candidate" into the same old straight-jacket more traditional candidates are constrained by, we fail to understand the momentum they can generate. There's a real "underground pulse" I can feel in America; Americans are desperate for change and, even though they may not understand the issues in detail, even though they've grown incredibly cynical, even though sometimes it seems like there is just no hope to be found anywhere, Americans will generate a tidal wave of support and energy for a candidate who genuinely touches their souls. That can't be done with marketing scripted speeches and campaign gimmicks and "seeming presidential"; it's either real or it isn't. Voters know in their gut the trouble we're in; the bullshit is wearing thin and Americans are finally maturing in a political sense. That's about as optimistic as I dare to be.

So, I don't disagree with your observations about what we're up against; still, I believe that a real giant would crush these dwarfs ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I don't so much disagree with your conclusion either

But the media does tend to weed out voices who critique the system from too far outside it. Even Michael Moore, who can't be beat for generating colorful controversy, suffrered almost a four year major media blackout after the initital hoopla over 9/11 faded away. Moore is just as capable of "entertaining" with stinging commentary as an Anne Coulter is (unlike her with his integrity intact) but she is the wild eyed one who gets the air time. Moore is just so damn good at what he does that they can't ignore him completely right when he has a major new documentary out, but the rest of the time they do.

Having said that I think conventional wisdom generates a very strong force of inertia. It takes a special kind of politician to play outside the lines of the political coloring book, one creative enough to generate his/her own buzz, one compelling enough to tap into substantial grass roots funding. It is so much simpler to attempt to play by the standard political rule book, but yes there are those exceptions and right now there aren't too many of them for the system to cope with and absorb undigested.

Every once in a while zero or double zero come up on the roulette wheel, and every once in awhile there is a movement friendly individual who is positioned for whatever reason in a way that gives them the potential to really break throurh. Denis Kucinich I am afraid will never be that person, though he has his important role to play as did Jessie Jackson once before him. You are right that circumstances and character have conspired in a way that might allow Al Gore to be that type of movement friendly winning politician this year. Someone with ability to finesse the system while still charting an independent and honest course. Having been VP in a popular Administration, having suffered through the stolen election and remade himself, after much sould searching, as a global defender of Earth's environment all are special wild card factors that Al Gore can put in play with our support. You know I believe Wes Clark has some of that type of potential also because of his long distinguished military career that equips him with a coating of patriotic teflon enhanced by his straight talking open personna that can appeal to people all the way across the political spectrum.

James Webb is another good example, and there are others. I agree that it is not impossible, but the cards are still stacked against us and too few politicians for now are emotionally and intellectually equipped to explore that alternate route to power. Most self censor and fall back on the familiar. We can and will continue to try to change that of course.

[Mass]

11. Group thinking. The democrats have decided that they need to be united, and therefore, those who

disagree with the mainstream thought, tend to stay silent in the name of unity.

It goes for Iran, Iraq, impeachment, and a multitude of other subjects like that.

In addition, some leading forces in the party have won the national security argument, that states that the way the party will be seen as strong in security is to accept the framing of the right and then propose their own solution, rather than contesting the framing. This explains the contorsions that some Democrats are making these days, voting for amendments that they know will give ammunition to the right, if, for example, they decide to attack Iran.

[leez34]

18. -

I agree with the OP. However, I don't think the Democrats have been totally mum. Kucinich, for one, has stated that he is unequivocally opposed to the oil law.

I must say, in interests of full disclosure, that I agree with the Greens on almost every issue, and I'm much closer to them than the Dems in political views. However, what is important to me is real world immediate change, and that means voting for Democrats, most of whom I am more than happy with, and I'm excited about it. My money goes to the Democratic party, and probably always will. If the US ever has more than two parties (likely only to happen if the Electoral College is disbanded) that may change, but until then I call myself a Democrat. I am a slave to beliefs, not to any party - but party politics are the only way to make change right now.

[welshTerrier2]

21. "totally mum"

welcome to DU, leez34!!

just to clarify something you responded to in the OP, I stated "STRONGLY REBUKING MOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY". I didn't say "the Democrats have been totally mum" because I've heard Kucinich speak out against the Oil Law. Sadly, though, this does seem to be "the party line."

[welshTerrier2]

19. so, they're putting politics ahead of policy

you may well be right, Mass. What's not at all clear to me is what is the "internal dynamic" that controls any given issue. For example, while unity is to be valued politically, how does it get determined that unity will be formed around silence on the Oil Law. Why not speak out for the Oil Law or against the Oil Law?

in fact, why not accept the argument that would likely be very politically palatable to the American people: Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people and they and only they should decide on their national oil policies? wouldn't this seem like the most politically popular and pragmatic view? clearly, if the Democrats came out and said they agree with bush that the US should pressure the Iraqis into signing the hideous PSA's to help Big Oil, they would be backing a political loser. How's that been working out for bush himself?

on policy, of course, this "national security argument" is crap as it relates to this issue. perhaps if we started spreading some goodwill in the Middle East and specifically in Iraq instead of building hatred, and Americans understand all too well we have built hatred, we'd be making the best possible "national security argument." And it's even hard to fully accept the premise that the "national security" forces are in control in the Party. the Dems sure are responding to the "blogosphere" and other anti-war outlets. Let me be very, very clear on this important point: the Dems may still be well short of where I want them to be on Iraq but this last bit was a brake-screeching reversal of direction after their last debacle. They heard us and it's hard to call their reaction anything short of a full blown panic. At least that's how I'm reading Reid.

the bottom line for me is that this silence is absolutely unacceptable and unconscionable regardless of why it's occurring. it's disgusting conduct. how can so called liberals remain silent in the face of such blatant imperialism? i will never again support those who do. we shall judge them by their deeds.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Dems are responding somewhat to the blogosphere regarding Iraq troop withdrawals

They see it as a winning issue with the public passionately behind them, thus they can score points against the Republicans on it. But I agree with Mass that they are constantly looking over their shoulder saying; "Oh oh, now we took a stand for peace which could be construed as a stand for surrender, so we have to act doubly tough about other pending threats to America or the Republicans will beat us on National Security.

Hence even when most Democrats mention the need for diplomacy with Iran, the only specifics they mention are one sided means of applying negative pressure on Iran to change their behavior with virtually no acknowledgementof America's role in furthering the conflict. Listen some time to what Democrats say when they advocate diplomacy to deal with Iran before we talk about bombing them. They advocate getting tougher new Security Resolutions against Iran, they talk about organizing more nations to impose sanctions against Iran, they talk about delivering in person a message to Iran that they will not be regarded as a civilized nation unless they change this that and the other behavior.

Meanwhile it is perfectly acceptable for Democrats to talk about how much Iran could benefit from a "regiem change" to oust those oppresive mulahs and free their people, knowing full well that the U.S. is currently supporting groups inside Iran attempting to bring about the overthrow of that government.

[LoZoccolo]

26. FUCK NADER! n/t

[Perry Logan]

27. This is not the title of my comment.

This is not my comment.

[Uncle Joe]

28. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread welshTerrier.

[MuseRider]

29. K&R

No time to respond now but I agree and wanted to kick it while I could. Thanks.

[bvar22]

31. HOORAY!!!! Someone besides Kucinich !

I heard John Kerry yesterday criticizing the Iraqis because they haven't passed the "Oil Sharing Law"!!!!
JOHN FUCKING KERRY!!!!
He MUST know what is in this law...A WAR CRIME!!!
I felt betrayed and slimed after hearing John Kerry stand in support of this extortion.

Thank You Green Party and ANYONE ELSE who will give voice to this abomination!

[welshTerrier2]

32. i heard Kerry say that too

i said something very harsh to my TV ... trust me, he'll be hearing from me about his comment.

to Kerry fans, I truly do not understand how he could have said what he said. If you'd like to explain it, i'm listening.

[MasonJar]

33. We have treated their country with disdain and cruelty. We MUST NOT

rob them of their oil too. That would be dishonorable and disgraceful.

[LWolf]

34. I, for one, choose to fight.

either we are going to allow corporations to direct American foreign policy or we are going to fight against their control. silence is a policy decision and a very bad one at that.