The Depth of Legislative Indifference

I apologize for not writing the column I said I would on a proposed ideology for progressive, but the unconscionable behavior of congressional Democrats in giving Bush the money to continue this war indefinitely is too outrageous to pass without comment.

When Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee whimpers "We don't want to send the message to the troops that Congress does not support them. We're going to support those troops.", I want to ask where is his similar concern for this country’s Constitution and the duty it imposes on him to assert and protect the fundamental role of the Congress in determining whether this country will engage in war. They all took that oath, but we never hear them talk about it. When the founders placed it in the Constitution they did not say implementing it would be easy nor that tough decisions would not have to be made to insure its protection. Where was the resistance that this issue demanded? Where was the filibuster to bring focus, attention and life to this issue that the voters overwhelming demanded in the 2006 election? These people are facilitating the establishment of a dictatorship in this country. Is it possible that the Beltway Democrats are inconceivably timid and have turned their backs on their predecessor’s courage in fighting against the Vietnam aggression and the Great Depression? Do we have a party of wimps or do they march to a different drummer?

As Ann Wright has observed in an article in Truthout, the Democrats have joined in making the Iraqi puppet government the patsy requiring them to finalize their Constitution, which requires that they privatize their oil reserves thus making them available to the major oil companies for whom this war was initiated in the first place. No other Middle East country has done so and the Iraqi’s are obviously loath to give up control of their only significant source of national wealth. If they do not accept the constitution they will not receive the billions promised to rebuild the country we destroyed. Once again it is the corporations and their greed that are the root cause of the deaths of thousands, the diversion of billions of dollars from social needs to war making and generating their most profitable years ever. All this was done with the complicity of the Democratic Parry leadership. No wonder Cindy Sheehan has given up in disgust and fear of the fascist government that awaits this country. I have attached below the article by Ann Wright and a message I sent to selected senators and representatives. We must, I believe, be deeply impressed by the danger we are in if Bush has another 18 months in office and we need to impress our concern vigorously upon those who have the capacity to remedy this situation before it is too late.

Bob Newhard

******************************

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Saturday 26 May 2007

On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

How much more can our military and their families take?

---

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.

*****************************

You have by your oath a Constitutional duty to protect this country and its Constitution from executive abuse. You have repeatedly refused to execute this solemn obligation. The latest such abuse was the provision of funds to continue this war unhampered by your constitutionally authorized ability to deny funds. Such a plea as Carl Levin’s that we must protect our troops, erroneous though it is, is no reason to abandon the Constitution. Where was the filibuster to raise this issue to its proper level? When you took that oath nobody said carrying it out would be easy.

We have on our hands a president who gives every indication that he seeks dictatorial powers and that he and his cohorts intend to destroy our democracy from the inside. Constitutionally only you can stop him. Now comes the NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51, which by fiat of directive gives Bush dictatorial power under all sorts of circumstances. In the first place no such powers should be permitted any president without the scrutiny and consent of Congress, including the consequences for our democracy. In the second place the last person in the country to have this power is George W. Bush. The arrogation of power by use of presidential directives and “signings” gives more than ample evidence that this person cannot be trusted with such power. You have until June 8, 2007 to nullify this executive order. DO SO IMMEDIATELY LEST YOU DELIVER THIS NATION IRREVOCABLY INTO THE HANDS OF A DICTATORSHIP.

Robert Newhard

40228 Via Aguadulce

Murrieta, CA 92562