<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Back to Iraq &#187; oil</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.back-to-iraq.com/tag/oil/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.back-to-iraq.com</link>
	<description>Back to Iraq &#124; Being a recounting of my journalistic ventures in Iraq</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:31:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Update on House Vote</title>
		<link>http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2002/10/update-on-house-vote.php</link>
		<comments>http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2002/10/update-on-house-vote.php#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:09:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Allbritton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vietnam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://back-to-iraq.com/?p=17</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Hastert-Gephardt proposal (H.J.R 114) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/international/10CND-IRAQ.html">passed</a> the House today on a 296-113 vote.
 <a href="http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2002/10/update-on-house-vote.php">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Hastert-Gephardt proposal (H.J.R 114) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/international/10CND-IRAQ.html">passed</a> the House today on a 296–113 vote. The Senate also voted 75–25 to limit debate, meaning its vote on the war resolution could come as early as tomorrow. This is disappointing as the <a href="http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/SPRATT_044.PDF">Spratt amendment</a> was a common-sense approach to this whole killin’ Iraqis business. (For a glimpse of alternatives, <a href="http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf">Here’s</a> a PDF that compares the various House and Senate proposals.)<br />
All of this <i>may</i> be moot, however because sources on Capital Hill are saying that Bush doesn’t want war at all! That come Nov. 5, Bush will suddently start talking about how the <a href="http://www.un.org">United Nations</a> is a useful body after all, and that inspectors will be allowed to do their job. I’m told Bush doesn’t want to be looking at an occupied Iraq two years from now when we have guerilla fighting in Baghdad suburbs, a massive drain on the national economy and a stable oil supply only because United States occupation forces keep Kurds, Shi’ites and Sunni Arabs (not to mention Turkomen and Iranians) from each others’ throats. Add to that a daily trickle of body bags as one or two GIs die every couple of days. <i>That</i> wouldn’t be very fun to run on, would it? Especially since Bush avoided the horrors of a long, drawn out guerilla war once before!<br />
This would be a fascinating example of dog-wagging. At least President Clinton actually tossed some cruise missles around when he was accused of doing it to distract the nation from him “doing it.” In Bush’s case, however war with Iraq will have been talked up, the Middle East destabilized, the UN insulted and our reputation trashed with allies—all for short-term election gains. (Well, not <i>all</i> for short-term gains. No doubt there are plenty of true believers who think that Saddam should be blowed up real good, but trying to divine the influence of people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al., is akin to Kremlinology.) A post-election change in rhetoric would prove the influence of “General Rove.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.back-to-iraq.com/2002/10/update-on-house-vote.php/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

