Now ain't that a pip. All the lefty loons have been shouting for years, "it's all about the oil", yet the Iraqi's seem to be pulling this together themselves. Even as Bush is mentioned in the article as lending support to the president of Iraq, I'm sure the left will be hurling lies that Bush just wants the oil, which they have continued to lie about without a lick of proof. Oh, I know, it's a vast right wing conspiracy.

Attempts to pass a key oil law sought by the U.S. were snarled once more Wednesday by deep differences among Iraq's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, delaying parliament debate despite the prime minister's claims of a breakthrough.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3884332.html

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

If the war has nothing to do with oil, why is there strong opposition to the bill, which is strongly supported by the US, because of fears that it will open up Iraqi oil to foreign markets?

Read this

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

The war has to do with saddam supporting terrorism, the oil is for the Iraqis not Bush as many on the left claim. We will undoubtedly buy their oil, but the oil is their way of sustaining themselves financially.

But believe what you want. These claims from the left are nothing but lies, only to hurt Bush, and in their minds, screw the Iraqis. Nice humanitarians, don't you think?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Yeah, right Bronco. I want to know where my oil is.....seeing as how this was all about oil.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The war had to do with a lot of things.

If this is our official stance, than why are Iraqis worried the the oil bill will open up their oil to foreign companies, not simply to buy, but to control?

I don't think they would be worried about the bill if it ensured the oil would stay in Iraqi control, and we would simply buy it from them. That's what they want. More specifically, from the article above, this is what they are worried about:

These "lies", as you prefer to call the claims, are backed by very strong circumstantial evidence. Bush and his family have made their fortune in the oil industry. Bush started a war with a oil rich nation in hopes of placing a pro-America government into power. Now Bush is pushing for an oil bill in that country that could allow foreign oil companies to gain control of Iraqi oil.

Now personally, I try to believe bush is acting in the best interests of the nation on this one, but it is far from inconceivable that him and his family could personally benefit from the oil bill, if it does allow foreign oil companies to take control of the oil.

But honestly, I'll applaud him if he walks away from all this with at least some personal control over Iraqi oil. Deep down, I admire people who get away with stooging voters and manipulating the system for personal gain.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

Circumstantial? that is proof enough for me. You are a joker

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

http://www.huliq.com/26514/australia...vement-in-iraq
easy on the kool aid, lemmings

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

That's why I didn't say it was proof. I said it was strong evidence, but of course, evidence is not proof.

No comment on the concerns of Iraqis over the oil bill, huh? Typical.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

How does the article that you posted support the notion that the war was NOT about oil??

ANTONIA JUHASZ: "It’s a Bush administration, US corporate, very simple attempt to figure out: if you’re going to wage a war for oil, how do you get the oil. Does Exxon come in on a tank with a flag and stick it in the ground, or do you have a more careful process? The careful process is very simply: write a law, get a new Iraqi government in place, have the Iraqis pass the law, and then turn the oil over to US oil corporations.

The Bush administration designed the law. Last January, President Bush announced that it was a benchmark for passage by the Iraqi government. It was the same day that he announced the surge. And in the language of the administration, the surge was meant to provide the political space so that the Iraqis could discuss the oil law and other benchmarks. The Democrats then adopted this language of the benchmarks and said in the supplemental war spending bill, again, that the Iraqis have to pass this benchmark. And it very simply turns Iraq from a nationalized oil system, essentially closed to US oil corporations, to a privatized system in which potentially two-thirds of all of Iraq’s oil could be owned by foreign oil companies, and they can control the production with as long as thirty-year contracts. "

Clearly, a law that will make Exxon, Shell etc. happy. Do you have evidence to the contrary?