Republican Senators Putting Pressure On Bush, Challenging the President's Iraq Policy!!!

What policy? He has no policy. He hasn't got a single thought!

These aren't fence-sitting Republicans, either -- these are guys who have been forced to notice the country's in real trouble. I'm not sure how W's going to try to talk his way out of this one, though they're sure trying to make this a Summer of Fear with the "gut feeling" terrorist warning business.

Thank you for the info on the link. I can't wait to see what it says.

look for more to come....they are dropping off the bush bandwagon like buzzards!

Bush will just create a new TERROR ALERT to take the edge off of this...just like he has been doing all along...

Hey Nalita,
I wanted to read this yesterday but ran out of "minutes"! But now I see today that the Prime Minister in Iraq says they can do it on their own and don't need our help, just our weapons. So then..... I guess we can pack up and leave tomorrow and I guess that W and the warbirds are wrong.

Here's the link to the article on "Iraq: we don't need you anymore".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/07/14/international/i062444D18.DTL&tsp=1

about time some of his own people challenged Shrub!

You're correct, Kris, these are TOP Republicans, and Bush is definitely paying attention.

Glad it helps, Lynn A.!

I predict that Bush will dig his heels in and refuse to change course. He is too proud to admit that he has made some mistakes. Pride is such a dangerous quality.

Oh, Joe, Bush is thinking. I am not in agreement with him and McCain on the
continuation to stay the course on the war, but is he thinking....

Yes, PJ.L. Where Warner and Lugar lead, others Republicans are certain to follow that clout. After all, there are about 18 seats coming up for re-election in '08

Dave. Dave. Dave. My Man, DAVE! Whew! Let's hope against THAT!

I read that too, Angelo, but don't you think that is just wishful thinking? Give me your thoughts, please?

Whew, a tad vicious, Missy, huh? Shrub? Actually, behind closed closed there have been reports that less influential Republicans have been asking Bush to set some timelines on the war. Warner and Lugar have been the first Big Guns to set up to the plate so openly...

You know what, Joe? I respectfully disagree. I have said in my "in home" conversations that there in only ONE THING that would get Bush to relent and back down, and that would be if Republicans put the pressure on, en masse. They do that? Watch and see how fast this whole thing turns around. I would put BIG bucks on it. But as long as Bush has the Republican congressional support, he will NEVER back down on his Iraq stance.

Nalita,

I can't even imagine what would happen if W caves and pulls out of Iraq cause they've told us they don't need us. They would probably have to kick us out because Georgie boy is not planning to leave there while in office. He's going down with the ship.

Hey maybe we should put the George W Bush combination memorial presidential Library and Texas-style smoked beef brisket diner over in Bagdad? Then he could sign copies of his war memoirs for the locals and find out first hand what they think of the compassionate nation-building freedom fool. Maybe they will greet him as a liberator!

Dubya cooked up a formula to accomplish a "fait accompli" of permanent American occupation of Iraq and hegemony of the Middle East. If he could continue to frighten Americans with the threat of terrorism ala 9-11 then he could pour more and more American assests into Iraq and make it economically and commercially disasterous for exit. Vast sums are spent on contractors who will lose out if we leave. Vast sums are being spent on military and embassy infrastructure. The American military/industrial cabal is awash in tax dollars they won't want to see disappear. Oil price inflation under Dubya has redistributed American wealth to oil producers and strenghted oil as THE vehicle to move money globally. Core Bush supporters in the oil industry and millions who own oil stock benefit from continued Middle East instability. This is about gaining domestic oil refiners and producers, dedicated RNC supporters, every last dime to be squeezed until Bush is politically neutered. That's the core, the "base" 33% of Bush support that will lose if this house of cards collaspes. The big prize is forcing the Iraqis to voluntarily cede soveringty of their oil wealth to American oil moguls. THat's the fable "hydro-carbons" law written by the Bush and oil companies and neglected in the Iraqi parliement.

We are not close enough to the election for the Dems to explode the myths of George Bush, the neo-cons and the elected Republican Congress. It will happen in the next year. That's why the Repubs are jumping ship now: They need the time to change the subject before the election. Dubya still wants that oil in Iraq for his buddies. Therein lies the rub.

Angelo! Yes, yes, yes!! I would donate to the George W. Bush Presidental Library right in the middle of the Green Zone, as long as he sits in the window at the reception desk.

Sam and Angelo, your comments are compelling, thought-provoking, and to this reader -- true. Voters do not realize just how much power they really have. They would not be much point to the economics of middle-East oil to the congressional Republicans if they had to pack up and head back home, because "We the People" had fired them! Do not miss Warner and Lugar's subtle point/action -- the mighty Elephant, -- and make no mistake just how ferocious and incomparable an animal the elephant can be and IS -- is shaken. 2006 was a wake up call! Make no mistake that many, many discussions are going on in board rooms, in Bush quarters, and at Congress. The question, being, how do we win this next election, how do we keep people distracted and asleep so we might maintain status quo.

WAKE UP AMERICA! YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE!

...This is no game. This party is for real, with real stakes, and the players are out to win AT ALL COSTS, and the price to be paid may very well be yours.

KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK.

You: who is it?
FBI: Open the door
You: what for?
FBI: Sorry, but we have to search your premises
You: You don't have the right.
FBI: Sure do, and we don't need to give you a reason
You: I am calling my attorney
FBI: You don't have that right, either
You: Yes, I do
FBI: You are unfamiliar with new law implemented since 9/11, can't phone your attorney.
You: Today is voting day, at least let me go vote
FBI: (aside to the other agent): has a photo of a Democrat.
you are other arrest. Based on Homeland Security statutes, we've been directed to place you under immediate detention...let's go.
You: But, I'm an American CITIZEN
FBI: (Handcuffing you, probably in front of your family)

If you think it can't happen, then you had better WAKE UP.
This is not a game.

Anyone seen my constitution or bill of rights?

I miss them.

Rights?
Your Rights?
Your Bill of Rights?
Read the comments made by Congresswoman Barbara Lee in my poem about Barbara Lee. It's on this site. The notes are in a commentary at the bottom of the page; there are quotes from her. Then come back and tell me about your "rights", my Friend.

Sorry. :=(

Nalita, a very good article and comments.

I am one who thinks like Sam (his comment was right to the point). I also believe that Bush has more 'up his sleeve' than we know.

Consider the scenario: we have another 9/11 type incident, Bush declares martial law. No elections can be held during that period. That may sound 'out there', but it is SO Bush-like.

Yes, our house is on fire. And a tyrant is running the fire station.

Nalita --

Your arrest scenario, a few bubbles up...........it happens all the time in Chicago, and this town is as Left Wing as it gets. The police are firmly in the back pocket of Mayor Daley, as are all the rest of the corrupt Machine Politicians here. It's just business as usual here..........

For good reasons a lot of the focus is on troop numbers, casualties, and typical "war" type stuff. But we should never forget about the oil. Just as important to understanding this "war" are things like reconstruction contracts, and who controls and profits from Iraqi oil. Predictably, this is the side of the "war" that isn't getting much coverage in the mainstream media.

Cheri, Sam:
Come on, come on! In the words of the late, great LBJ: I come to you today, not as your President, but as a fellow American...violence will not be tolerated.

Do you realize what you are saying?

It sounds very, very violent. I know you are being facetious.

I know you would never put Mr. Bush in that position.

Bret:

No doubt, you know Chicago better than I do.

Bay Area seems to be the butt of jokes as being the most liberal area in the country, though.

Wil B:

Develop/elaborate that thought a little more, if you would be kind enough?

Nalita, I'd be happy to.

We know that the US government doesn't really give a crap about the Iraqi people. We know that our troops are not over there try to "liberate" them, but to try to gain and maintain control over the production and export of OIL.

That's not to say that the "war" part of it isn't good business as well. After all, companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Alliant make money selling the military the stuff they need to destroy Iraqi, and companies like FluorAMEC, ECC and hundreds of other large and small companies are then paid (with our tax dollars) to rebuild it.

But obviously oil is where the real money is. But apparently we aren't having much luck with that, either. We don't hear as much about the attacks that don't necessarily result in a lot of human casualties, but have a big impact on pumping, refining and transporting oil. We don't hear much about how the Iraqi oil industry is in a shambles. So many of the people who knew how to run it are gone (out of Iraq or dead) and many of those who are left are corrupt, incompetent or both. So there's a huge mess that needs to be sorted out, but there's big money in it for whoever manages to do it. The question is, once they get large amounts of oil flowing out of Iraq again, will it be more profitable for them to sell it to China or to us?

The whole mess in Iraq was never about terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction, or the long-suffering people of Iraq. It was, and is, about money, power, and oil.

The Iraqi oil law states the Iraqi National Oil Company gets 17 of 80 known fields, the rest cede locks stocks and barrel to international oil companies to exploit in any manner wished. All remaining undeveloped or not yet discovered fields go to the internationals. The Iraqis get 12.5% royalty at the terminal, cost determined by the oil companies. Iraq is forbidden to join OPEC, interfere with oil markets or supply. It's kind of like allowing British Petroleum to occupy Louisana, export and develop the state's oil under BP's terms and if we don't like it the British Army will "assist." Sunni and Shi'ia clerics have issued a "fatwa" against anybody voting for or promoting the "hydro-carbons" law written by Dubya and the oil monkeys, bought and paid for by your tax dollars and children's blood, all why repeating "turrurism, turrurism, turrurism."

Nalita -

I've lived all over, and here's how I rate Liberal-ness, by city :

1) the Bay area
2) Chicago
3) Seattle
4) Manhattan
5) Boston
6) Portland
7) DC
8) the Kremlin

Yes, all those cities are Left of the Kremlin........lol

Sam C. -

The Iraqi Hydrocarbon law might seem lopsided to you and me, but I hear that its rather standard in the oil industry.
A few reasons why oil contracts are done they way they're done :

- Middle East terrorism risk
- The Iraqis have little or no investment money involved in the new fields
- The Iraqis have little or no expertise or experience at developing new fields
- insurance costs are astronomical for the region
- a high chance of nationalization of the developed oil fields
- a high degree of risk of a foreign oil company losing everything
- a whimsical government, not skilled in the oil markets.......yet
- pipelines are main terrorist targets
- pipeline workers are kidnap targets
- al-Qaeda has named the oil industry as its main target to bring down the government

Five Nobel Peace Prize winners said it a lot better than I ever could:

"In support of the people of Iraq, we the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, state our opposition to the Iraq Oil Law. We also oppose the decision of the United States government to require that the Iraq government pass the Oil Law as a condition of continued reconstruction aid in legislation passed on May 24, 2007.

A law with the potential to so radically transform the basic economic security of the
people of Iraq should not be forced on Iraq while it is under occupation and in such a weak negotiating position vis-à-vis both the U.S. government and foreign oil
corporations.

The Iraq Oil Law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability, and move the country further away from peace.

The U.S. government should leave the matter of how Iraq will address the future of its oil system to the Iraqi people to be dealt with at a time when they are free from occupation and more able to engage in truly democratic decision-making.
It is immoral and illegal to use war and invasion as mechanisms for robbing a people of their vital natural resources."

Bret let me get this straight: You're defending the oil law as written? Even tho every other nation in the Middle East retains soveringty over their oil wealth and contracts with oil companies to exploit under the nations own guidelines? That no other nation has a foriegn occupying force to insure the occupiers get the lion's share? Bret the only way this contract is done is to loot Iraqi oil on the blood of Americans to benefit RNC oil moguls. Both Shi'ia and Sunni clerics reject this travesty on pain of death. Why defend or rationalize the indefensible? Aren't you aware what the charade is costing America???

Bret:
I have been (of course) to the Bay Area, Manhattan, DC, Seattle, Portland, but not the other places. I do find, of the places I have been to that the Bay Area was -- by far the most liberal. I know you won't agree with me, and maybe it was because I have a lot of friends in DC, but DC wasn't as liberal as I thought it would be; I felt like I was South of the Mason/Dixon line, and I guess I was. Being a CA girl I wasn't accustomed to that, even though I've been South before. I liked Minneapolis/St. Paul better than DC, believe it or not. I guess because in Minn, like the Bay Area, people were as uptight and suspicious ("Prince" territory???)

You might be surprised to know that San Francisco has a very conservative, right-wing element, even in the Gay community, which is very prominent and has a very powerful political base here.

Berkeley is, and will probably always be my town, but like San Francisco the real estate is so expensive; it's nothing for a wretched home, average 3bd,2bath, by most of the country's standards (average) to be worth close to, if not 1M. In San Francisco, forget it. The condos/studio condos next to where I once worked go for about 750k; it's ridiculous.

Bret:
you've got a wealth of territorial experience -- as well as other -- to draw from; that's obvious. I am glad you shared that.

Wil B:

Although, we differ on issues of Christianity, I do not see much difference, based on what you stated above, on how we differ about issues concerning Iraq. That's interesting. Thanks for coming back and elaborating

Sam:
My sis and I have talked extensively about oil...I'm pausing and sighing because it seems, well, it's like Newton said:

For every action, there is a reaction

That applies here, too. She's a scientist, Doctor of Philosophy, 7 different areas of science -- wildlife biology being one.

I had an experience once where a friend was caught in the middle of a coupe overseas, and we were frightened for her. When she returned, we were relieved, because of all the media reports of slaughters, assassinations, so forth. When we talked to her about all of this, she laughed. She said,

"Where were you getting your information? Your reports were wrong!"

But we were getting our reports from mainstream major media.

But she was there, in the middle of it, or at least should have been, if media reports were correct.

I've learned to listen, read, and then READ BETWEEN THE LINES/ANALYZE.

Getting back to oil, I asked my sis,

What do you think is going on as they pull all of this oil from the earth? It's got to be having adverse effects. When do you think they shall begin to manifest?

She told me it was a good question, she didn't have the answer, but she had been wondering the same thing, too.

We just cannot withdraw such a major element from nature without consequence.

Call it the "butterfly effect". Call it Newton's action/reaction. But, this oil greed is going to cost dearly, just as cutting down rainforests have cost Earth dearly.

I'll get down off the soapbox, now, but you started this, Sam! ;=)

Bret, and Sam:
It's all political -- both sides using fear to further their own personal agendas

Wil B:
I had never heard that, or read that before. I don't know who those 5 Nobel Peace Prize winners are/were, but they should be commended, and re-awarded.

But, again, are Americans listening? Just as I hadn't heard it. Has most of the American public?

And were they to hear, would they conceive, perceive, and heed?

"I had never heard that, or read that before. I don't know who those 5 Nobel Peace Prize winners are/were, but they should be commended, and re-awarded."

They are 5 of the 12 female Nobel Laureates, and their website is at nobelwomensinitiative.org for those interested in learning more.

Are Americans listening? No, because these aren't the messages being hammered into them by the media.

Would they really listen and understand if they were getting these messages? Yeah, I think a lot of them would. But it wouldn't be easy. A lot of effort went into turning America's fear and anger into support for perpetual war. It's not going to be easy to get through that and move on to a larger, deeper understanding of what's really going on.

Sam C. –

Bret let me get this straight: You're defending the oil law as written? Even tho every other nation in the Middle East retains soveringty over their oil wealth and contracts with oil companies to exploit under the nations own guidelines? That no other nation has a foriegn occupying force to insure the occupiers get the lion's share? Bret the only way this contract is done is to loot Iraqi oil on the blood of Americans to benefit RNC oil moguls. Both Shi'ia and Sunni clerics reject this travesty on pain of death. Why defend or rationalize the indefensible? Aren't you aware what the charade is costing America???

Sam, nearly every nation in the Middle East is a dictatorship. No wonder why they own all the resources and have the best arrangements, is it? They still have to pay out enormous amounts of money to Aramco and other American and International companies to harvest the oil that lay under their sands.
You're not really still singing the "blood for oil" tune, are you? Virtually every Leftie abandoned that idea when we gave the Iraqi National Oil Company back to the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2003. Isn't that counter-intuitive to your argument? If we really went to Iraq to steal their oil, wouldn't it be more logical for us to keep that entity?

Shi'a and Sunni clerics eat Fruit Loops upon pain of death, when they get worked up, Sam. Just because they don't like something, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. If the Hydrocarbon law requires very little investment by the government of Iraq (which they don't have, incidentally), and they can get a huge return on it………..well, that sounds pretty good. As I understand it, 12 already discovered oil producing areas are spoken for by the Iraqis – all the rest that haven't been discovered are open to investment. Sounds pretty common.

Nalita -

I believe you. I think Berkeley is the capital of American Liberalism, and San Fran is its suburb. And the cost of living there makes it insane. I wouldn't do it.

I had no idea there was ANY Conservative movement in the Bay Area. Maybe in response to the insanely vocal Nutty Left there? LOL

Bret you're delustional or just a merry prankster. Is this what it means to part of the solid 33% Bush base? Are you still preaching we're in Iraq to fight "turrur?" Most rightwingnuts gave up on that fantasy too.

It's incredible you can be so dismissive national determination or religious authority when every day more GI's die, are maimed and Iraqi battalions "unfit" for combat despite all our efforts. What does it take to convice you the Iraqis and the rest of the planet are quite aware we're there to loot the oil? Think trivializing the conflict makes it go away? THis is typical Bush thinking: I want it to be so, so it is.

Sam C. -

I'm a Conservative. When President Bush ACTS Conservatively, he has my support. When he acts other than Conservatively, he does not have my support.
A good example of Mr. Bush acting non-Conservatively was during the recent Immigration Bill fiasco. I was very much against his position. Thankfully, most of America was too.

Sam, I have family in Iraq right now, and they have a mission to complete. If you talk to most military families, you'll find that we're overwhelmingly behind staying in Iraq until a Democracy is in place and can defend itself.
I believe that the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law will give the Iraqi people something to fight for..............money! They've never had any. But when they do, they'll see that their country might just be worth standing up and fighting for.

I've studied Oil laws in the Middle East, as I travel there occasionally for work. I'll be leaving on another trip there in a few days. The Hydrocarbon law (drafted by oil consulting company Bearing Point, incidentally...........not Mr. Bush or anyone in his administration) seems pretty standard, even though you think it doesn't. The key aspect that you don't seem to understand is that Iraq has no investment capital for these multiple, costly, risky exploratory drillings. The companies doing the digs provide ALL the capital, and that's part of the reason they are rewarded so handsomely.

Broke clerics and other local clergy can complain all they want. But if they were trying to attract foreign capital to finance a risky project like these in Iraq, they'd be doing the same exact thing.

I guess it just looks good in their local communities to protest anything American.