Should Democrats tell truth about Iraq War motives?

[yurbud]

One reason the Republicans control the debate on Iraq is that Democrats let them frame it as being about the "War on Terror."

Rather than disprove the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, it would undercut the GOP a lot more if someone gave the case for the real motives as CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Pentagon analyst Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Jay Garner and others have either explicitly or indirectly confirmed:

• to get our oil companies control of Iraq's oil (for the benefit of those companies not Americans in general)
  
  
• to be in a position to influence, intimidate, and invade other oil producing countries as needed
  
  
• to protect Israel
  
  
• to protect the dollar by stopping a shift to trading oil in dollars instead of Euros.
  

Greg Palast and others have found ample documentary evidence for the first two.

http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

If someone stood up on the Senate floor, listed these, and asked for the documents from Cheney's 2001 Energy task force meeting to prove these wrong, the administration would be on the defensive.

Most senators and congressmen have referred to this at best obliquely, and barely in more detail than a "no blood for oil" protest sign.

This would also refocus attention on the issues raised by the DSM. Those made the case that the Bushies knew their reasons for war were false.

The other shoe is giving the real reasons, which are easier to reject than fear of the boogey man giving nukes to terrorists.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[radio4progressives]

1. thank you for putting up a poll that has real signficance & meaning n/t

[bryant69]

2. I*'ll vote for - "No I'm an idiot"

It is the closest to my actual opinion, which is that the key trait that defines our involvment in Iraq is Arrogance. We really truthfully believed that we could "fix" Iraq and the middle east - once them Arabs saw how great Iraq was they would all fold and that part of the world would be safe forever more.

The oil argument is probably part of it, but if that were the main reason we would have already withdrawn - we could preserve the oil fields and set up a strong man dictator for a lot less money than we have spent. Hell, we might have even been able to strongarm Saddam - he'd played ball before.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[yurbud]

3. they wanted to do a dictator, but Iraqis didn't buy Chalabi

Remember, they took him in tow right after the invasion.

Read the Greg Palast stuff.

The oil companies are now claiming that their idea was a quick, limited war to replace Saddam with another, more pliable dictator.

The Bushies just got greedy. They wanted it all--not just contracts for our companies, but the actual rights to the oil, so we wouldn't have to give the Iraqis a penny.

Also, as the world oil supplies drain down, the Middle East will be the last part to go dry.

If you look at the history of dealing with Third World democracies that guys like Wolfowitz, Negroponte, Rummy, and Cheney have, it's obvious they don't give a fuck about that. It's just a cover story to pacify the stupids.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[bryant69]

4. Well I'm not sure I buy that interpretation of what happend to Chablai

He made open overatures to Iran - he was proving difficult to control, plus he made a convienent person to blame the prewar mis-intelligence on.

[mmonk]

5. Absolutely

I think the reason though they haven't been more attuned to pointing it out has to do with campaign finanacing and some dems may be dirty as well. However, all brave dems should discuss it every chance they get.