Will Bush Really Veto the Iraq Accountability Act?
Bush says he’ll veto the Iraq Accountability Act because it contains a timetable for withdrawal. If this law is passed, American troops will have to be out of Iraq by August 2008.
But will Bush really veto this bill? This is where the War on Terror clashes with Bush’s true goal: the Quest For Oil. Buried deeply in this bill is another item which might be even more important to Bush/Cheney than their rhetorical “War On Terror.” This other item mandates the sharing of oil revenues among all Iraqis. Well, that sounds nice. That’s the large print.
The fine print goes into much more detail. When this law takes effect, about 80% of Iraq’s oil reserves will be controlled by British and American oil companies. These oil reserves are currently controlled by the Iraq government.
THIS is why we invaded Iraq and why we’re still quagmired there four years later. “Support Our Troops!” and “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” — it’s all window dressing. Control of Iraq’s oil is the underlying purpose of this war, and this control is written into the Iraq Accountability Act.
Bush doesn’t have the stones to veto it.
Labels: Global War On Terror, Iraq, Iraq Accountability Act, Iraqi oil reserves
posted by Tom Harper @ 10:16 AM
16 Comments:
Wharever Bush does, you can be assured he will keep the oil for him and his real constituents.
www.lydiacornell.com
Larry: That's true, the oil companies will come out on top, no matter what. Heads, Exxon gets the oil. Tails, Exxon gets the oil.
I'm not surprised (and great catch by the way), but the burning question is: How did it get attached to this bill? This bill must have Bush's panties in a twist, and I have to believe that the administration is still skilled enough to get his oil grabbing clause attached to something less controversial.
Kvatch: I don't know how that bill got into the appropriations bill, but the oil industry has plenty of sleazy prostitutes in Congress (in both parties) who would slip in an amendment like that. This does put Bush in an awkward position, but like you said, he'll manage to get that clause attached to something else if this bill doesn't pass.
I think Bush will veto the bill, and wait for the Dems to present him with something that has no timetable attached. The Dems, if they have the guts, won't budge. Bush certainly isn't going to budge... Whoever budges or blinks first will be seen as a weakling, as a failure. If Bush signs the bill, he will be seen by members of his own party as capitulating to the Democrats. If the Dems budge and present Dumbya a bill minus a timetable, the GOP spin machine will go into full effect, painting the Democrats as "soft on terror" and "not supporting the troops". The U.S. government will end up with the oil whatever happens, so I think this bill mainly amounts to a bunch of political grandstanding by both parties.
I think Bush will be told to veto it, so that the Dems can be made to look bad, weak, unpatriotic, etc. Sadly, I think a veto can actually work to the Republicans' advantage... unless the Dems have some good talking points ready and some good media coverage lined up. But for that, I wouldn't be holding my breath... It seems like in those kind of public relations wars, the Republicans usually come out on top.
Snave: I'm afraid you're right, this will probably end up being a who-blinks-first contest between Bush and the Democrats. So far Bush has always won those contests, but there's always hope.
Bill Clinton used to win those contests with the Republican Congress, but so far the Democrats don't seem to have anyone with his strength or charisma.
For 6 years the Republicans have been able to portray the Democrats as wimpy America-haters, but with the election results last November, that shouldn't be as easy for them.
There seems to be a concensus that the oil companies will get that Iraqi oil one way or the other. If this bill gets vetoed, that same rider will mysteriously get attached to another bill.
It's the only smart thing to do is to veto that dumb shit bill, nothing like telling the terrorist when we will be out so that they can just wait it out. It doesn't take to much brilliance to see that, even a dipstick liberal can see that, well maybe not, they are not very bright.
If he's so set to veto it and its such a terrible position to take (his view), why doesn't he do it already?
Phil: Right, asshole, let’s just stay and stay and stay over there with no clear goals whatsoever (or goals that keep changing). This strategy has been working so well for over four years, why change it? I see you’ve got your Talking Points memorized: if we set a timetable, the terrorists will go into hiding and just sit there drumming their fingers until our pullout date and then they’ll go “Sproing!!” and be right back on the battlefield and the terrorists will have won. OK, got it.
And your blog has a link to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times — enough said.
Political Realm: I don't think the bill has gotten to Bush's desk yet; the House and Senate still have to iron out their differences and come up with a final bill (I'm not sure about that). But yeah, I can see Bush trying to get lots of mileage by just saying "I'll veto it!" over and over, rather than actually vetoing it.
I didn't know about the attachment. That's very interesting.
It makes me sick to hear Bush/Cheney talking about how the Dems aren't "protecting the troops" if they pull the funding, when all the while, the troops have to make their own body armor.
I think it's a good thing to make Bush veto this bill because - and I hope I'm right on this - people are so fed up with him and his excuses for this war, and it's so obvious that we have to have a timetable - that he will continue to look like the moronic, petulant child he is, only more so. Maybe these whisperings of the "I" word will grow louder.
Phil, I checked out your pic on your blog, & you appear to be a strong, healthy man. The army could really use you right now.
Candace: Yup, that attachment is very interesting. I don't know who put it there, but the Bush Crime Family and the oil industry have lots of allies in Congress.
I think you're right, if he vetoes this bill, the "I" word will start getting whispered a lot more loudly.
Lizzy: Yeah!!! Excellent point.
Damn, I can't believe I missed this!
I heard of the plan as it was written by American consultants and panned off on the Iraqi Parliment which passed it last I heard.
But I had no idea Congress was trying to do this.
Who in Congress put the language in there is what I want to know and why.
I can only assume it was a Republican and it was done as a comprimise for getting the troops out but I suspect some Democrats went along for the ride.
Thanks for sharing, I'll be exploring it more.
This is really just so fucking wrong.
I don't know if you saw this Tom, A Tail of Iraq Oil, but in the video it gives staggering statistic:
Basically if each Iraqi was given a share of the oil revenue, each person would get 1 million dollars.
Iraq could be a very wealthy aristocratic oil state (albeit until the oil runs out).
Instead we're going to keep them impoverished and steal their fucking oil.
What's worse, oil prices will never come down.
We've basically subsidized with our tax dollars and military expenditures the search and exploration of new oil fields for the oil corps.
BULLSHIT
PoliShifter: I'm on BuzzFlash's e-mail list; they have some pretty interesting news items and links.
I don't know who snuck this amendment in, but Bush and Big Oil have lots of allies in Congress, including both parties. I had no idea about that statistic; that's unreal. But we can't let those Arab savages have all that oil wealth -- God intended for that wealth to go to Exxon and Halliburton.
Post a Comment
<< Home