House Votes To Ban Permanent Bases
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jul 24, 2007 7:51pmToday, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.
While the Bush Administration has indicated it would not seek permanent bases in Iraq, Administration officials have recently remarked that the President envisioned a continued military presence in Iraq similar to our presence in Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for more than 50 years.
Login or Register to post comments.
Frick!
Frack!
There's no logical reason to set up a permanent base. Any supplies or troops that we bring in and out of there would would be under constant attack for the foreseeable future.
We would be (as we are today) an objective evil for the insurgents and Al Qaeda to use as a recruitment tool for new recruits. "Kill the Americans and not only will you be keeping Muslim culture safe, but if you die while doing it, you'll be rewarded with 72 virgins."
And most Americans can't understand the folly of objective moralities.
Frist! (maybe)
That giant sucking sound of the Peoples Purse vanishing into the black "hole".
Anyone but an apologist or fool would have believed there was any other adminstration plan: "drain the swamp," cheney's energy cabal, neocon "America the last superpower should act like one," etc. etc. Weapons of mass destruction? The wave of democracy? Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here? All bullshit window dressing to sell it to the poor sod on the street.
I am feeling relieved on one hand, that finally the american people are being heard...but on the other hand....this cabal has never followed the rule of law......all they will do is attach another signing statement...that King George can do as he pleases......
We need to cut the funding for Iraq...and find out whom the general contractors are and pull the plug of the purse.........
Those numbers look good, veto proof. Now do we have to bite our nails on what the Senate is going to do?
Haven't looked at the bill, but I wonder how exactly the term "permanent" is defined. 50 years might qualify as "long term", but unless there is clear language in the definition, it doesn't strike me as per se "permanent."
Fort Blackwater. Has a nice ring to it. Like Dynecorp Airbase. Or Qualcomm stadium.
Hey, it's not a US base, right?
Just like Italy in the 14th and 15th centuries.
Privatization. Works for them.
Nationalize Halliburton.
Here's a guy in DC who knows how to combine cardboard, paint and freeways:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-save-your-country.html
we need more like him.
Dick Cheney is still and will always be the cause of all sorrow. Yes, even when he's passed on. He is the ultimate villain.
SteveinSC @ 5:
I know they don't even have a Navy what they going to do glide across the Atlantic on makeshift kites or pedal boats and invade us?
The bill will never pass. I worked in Iraq and was stunned at the size and unbelievably amount of construction on the bases. It is beyond anything you have seen on the media - I'm talking about two story gyms (basketball court with glossy professional wooden floor, multiple aerobics rooms, weight rooms), malls, massage parlors (not kidding), beauty salon, Kodak camera store, etc. Every time I hear someone even ask the question about 'permanent' bases, I have to laugh. There are already totally permanent facilites on these bases and multi-multi-million dollar construction projects going on as we speak. Just look at the goddamn US 'Embassy' in Baghdad - It is a freakin' military base in itself. Bush and his cronies have gone so far down this arrogant path of imperialism that people don't even know anything close to what is really going on .... THE WHOLE THING IS ON AUTO-PILOT FOR THE NEXT 70 YEARS !!! (and we'll be paying for it for hundreds of years)
I am not sure if this can be honestly executed within such a deep government but at least the effort is admirable.
About time. This was they PNAC's plan from the beginning.
Hal @ 13:
The "Embassy" takes up 80 football fields for perspective. Designed by Bush Co, it's the only project ahead of schedule and right on budget in Iraq.
Goes to show you where the real priorities are.
A permanent military occupation of Iraq was always the goal of the Bush regime. This bill throws down the gauntlet. Good on the Dems.
Who are the 24 republic morons who just don't give a shit what the people think or want, who voted against this bill?
fnordboy @ 8:
Exactly. Remember, life is temporary, so even a life time could be considered "not permanent".
Good for Nancy. At least she is bringing up this important issue and making it visible. Kerry actually included a pledge of no permament bases during the debate with Bush. The idea got virtually no attention then. But it is crucial to changing perception, giving Iraqis a little less reason to hate and mistrust us. That said, the facts on the ground create an situation that will be very very difficult to reverse. We've all be (justifiably) hard on Nancy and the Dem leadership. Credit where it is due.
Why is there no reporting in the media about these construction sites? Is it that they believe that the Iraqis maybe responsible for the construction themselves.?
"the President envisioned a continued military presence in Iraq similar to our presence in Korea"............
The PEOPLE are envisioning otherwise.
How about Bush and his administration in prison for 50 years.
"...THE WHOLE THING IS ON AUTO-PILOT FOR THE NEXT 70 YEARS !!! (and we’ll be paying for it for hundreds of years)"
Well, if we know enough over here about these planned bases that a bill was passed forbidding them , how come the insurgents aren't attacking them over there? Will the Military make a deal w/AQII? Will the Iraqi people just give up on self-rule and allow Americans to "nest" in their country and control their resouces for the forseeable future? I just don't understand how they can make this work.
We've got to spend money over there so we don't spend money over here.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAH,
How fucking tough are the Democraps elected to power in '06 to STOP THE IRAQ WAR?
'bout as tough as a used condom.
What kinda shit is this you're spewing now 'shaved box' Pelosi? We are the UNITED FUCKING STATES OF AMERICA! We have permanent bases across the globe if you haven't bothered to fucking notice. Not only have we conquered the planet but our BIGGEST FUCKING BASES ARE IN IRAQ! State of the fucking art BEEOTCH! We ain't going nowhere. GET FUCKING USED TO IT!!!
Go away DEMOCRAPS! To STOP THE IRAQ WAR the last thing to depend on is the DEMOCRAPS!
I guess Congress hasn't read Chalmers Johnson. He speculates at least 1000 U.S. bases around the world.
I hope the legislation is phrased properly. Remember Condi Rice's claim that there were no permanent bases because the U.S. *COULD* leave at some point? Remember "enduring" bases?
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 25:
She has a shaved box?
Wow, you are unformed.
I doubt the Dems will go anywhere but thanks for trolling.
Geez.
BTW, Chevy sux.
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 25:
Thus spaketh the Grand High Poobah of the Cult of Irrelevancy. All hail His Immortalness! Turn thy backs, drop trou, and SALUTE!
25
Motorhead Vette ‘67 Says
Go away DEMOCRAPS! To STOP THE IRAQ WAR the last thing to depend on is the DEMOCRAPS
So do you have a better plan? Let's see it. I just hope it doesn't involve letting another Republican win in '08 so they can continue to stack the courts, rob the public commons and consolidate control over all three branches of government and the press.
thye want to stay Iraq 50 years for one reason, that is when the Oil will run dry.
hadenuf @ 26:
Exactly. Chalmers Johnson's books should be mandatory reading by every member of congress. His description of the base in the Phillipines is chilling! People being raped, run over in the streets, not to mention the constant roar of takeoffs and landings of aircraft.
Our country's dream of Empire is a nightmare for those countries we are "protecting" with our bases.
That's nice...now do something that will back it up, like IMPEACHMENT!!!
I'm seeing a lot more of Distract, Divide and Discredit tactics being employed by trolls on Liberal blogs these days as things really start to heat up for the Bush regime.
1. Pretend to be a Progressive
2. float untenable conspiracy theories and demand actions that can't be achieved
3. attack Democrats
By employing these tactics the wingnuts hope to confuse, divide and try to dispirit people enough so that they fail to show up at the polls come the next election. Expect to hear a lot more of "there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" rhetoric as things get worse and worse for the Republicans. It's the best they can do now, try and make people as disgusted with the Democrats as they are with the Republicans.
Watch the Congressional Dollars, Not Their Words
Waste of time to pass language to "ban" a base: Congress knows the President is not required to sign this. Better way: Congress should zero-out the procurement dollars in the Descriptive Summaries (budget documents DoD coordinates with Congress). If Congress will not do this, then the only reasonable conclusion is Congress wants the bases, knows about the funding, and refuses to use options to close the bases.
BTW, I'm a Socialist, not a Liberal. I'm just realistic about what can, and cannot be achieved in our political system.
Well that's nice.
If Pelosi fucks up the Gonzales contempt vote by tabling it until after recess, I'm done.
We built twenty (20) military bases --
think they are all now complete?
AND a Taj Mahal of an Embassy -- 130 something acres?
Outrageous!!!!
Very limited coverage of this --
There should be no long term occupation of Iraq --
and their oil is NOT our oil --
In fact, we should nationalize our own OIL and take it back from the few families who control it -- !!!!
Thank you for your observations. Perhaps you might share your specific examples, and solutions when this has happened. Others could learn from specific instances of this, and see what might be done to make some more compelling arguments:
Snowball @ 34:
Maybe use their "methods" as a catalyst to propose some credible solutions . . .We're allowed to talk about solutions, aren't we? Or is that taking a side?
No reason to fear trolls if they're real trolls; but if they have valid points, not clear that they're trolls: Just people with different views. I trust the American public will see through them, and support solutions.
The public will see there is a way forward; and who is or isn't pulling the wool over their eyes. It may take a while to see what is really going on, but the public has come around, especially since November 2006.
Rather than talk about the "risk of trolls," perhaps we can talk about the "risk of not coming up with some solutions". If we have enough time to talk about trolls and not the issues, I suspect the issues are not that pressing; or both sides are admitting they don't have solutions: use that when you talk to them -- what are their solutions? If they're playing mind games, no need to spend time trying to "play the game better"; rather, focus on solutions.
Tha
"It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq."
I know that will never pass.
Thanks Navy Vet for a bunch of nothing!
Yes Snowball, I have a solution. BRING OUR KIDS HOME NOW!
Is that simple enough for you all to understand?
Dear Nicole:
Check out this story. The Congress may want to inform American citizenss that they are now using robots in combat. I think this is an important story and want people to know about. I am happy about the House vote to ban permanent military bases but this story is also very important. It also equates to more Iraqis being killed and a longer stay for the United States in Iraq as well.
Robot Attack Squadron Bound for Iraq
Associated Press | July 16, 2007
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles. The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada. The arrival of these outsized U.S. "hunter-killer" drones, in aviation history's first robot attack squadron, will be a watershed moment even in an Iraq that has seen too many innovative ways to hunt and kill. That moment, one the Air Force will likely low-key, is expected "soon," says the regional U.S. air commander. How soon? "We're still working that," Lt. Gen. Gary North said in an interview. The Reaper's first combat deployment is expected in Afghanistan, and senior Air Force officers estimate it will land in Iraq sometime between this fall and next spring. They look forward to it. "With more Reapers, I could send manned airplanes home," North said.
The Associated Press has learned that the Air Force is building a 400,000-square-foot expansion of the concrete ramp area now used for Predator drones here at Balad, the biggest U.S. air base in Iraq, 50 miles north of Baghdad. That new staging area could be turned over to Reapers. It's another sign that the Air Force is planning for an extended stay in Iraq, supporting Iraqi government forces in any continuing conflict, even if U.S. ground troops are drawn down in the coming years.
Read the rest of the story @:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,142437,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
Who's talking about risk? I'm merely drawing attention to a tactic that was employed by law enforcement during the Vietnam era against anti-war and leftist groups called triple D: Distract, Divide and Discredit. It's being used now with the anonymity of the internet.
I do realize that some posters are merely ignorant of how our political system works and the ability of the Democrats to take certain actions and swim uphill against the constant slime machine of the Corporate Media.
When political fortunes look particularly dim for the Conservative movement, it's interesting to see how many people are calling for the ultimately futile act of voting 3rd party and attacking Democrats which only helps the Conservative movement.
That said, as a Socialist, I have my own critique of Liberalism and the Democratic party in general. It's just I view it as counterproductive to casually, or not so much, attack and dismiss any efforts by the Democrats to hold the Bush regime accountable and to reign in the runaway right wing.
Fuck Pelosi ! She's a spineless bitch who has betrayed our country & our constitution by taking Impeachment off the table. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the greatest political blunder of our time. As a matter of fact, it is a crime in its own right!!!!
Yes, it is true Virginia. Democrats are suspect...
...and so are any individuals who claim to be SOCIALIST yet, align themselves with the money making machine called THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Go to this website to see how the soldiers really feel http://peacechick.blogspot.com/
Idiotic talking points:
1. "Pelosi took impeachment off the table." Who's to say she won't put it back on when the timing is right and they have enough incontrovertible evidence to proceed?
2. Democrats "voted to go to war." No they didn't. The Resolution for the Use of Force was not a declaration of war nor was it ever intended by anyone but Bush to be a blank check to go to war. Go back and read the Democratic floor speeches at the time. Also, if you'll recall, Democrats called for Bush to seek further authorization from Congress before he attacked Iraq. Bush refused. Do we so easily forget history as it is rewritten before our eyes by the Corporate Media like Winston Smith did in Orwell's "1984"?
Too many on the left have bought into Corporate Media right wing framing. That's one factor that makes it difficult for Democrats to proceed.
I hear some of the bases are already built so we can keep tabs on Syria and Iran. So we need legislation with more teeth.
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 45:
There are good Democrats and there are ringers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman got purged from the party by high information voters who bothered to vote in the primaries. Do you vote in primaries? That's your best option for changing the direction of the Democratic party.
I'd just love it if we had proportional representation and a parliamentary system in the US. That way I could vote for a party that more adequately reflected my own political ideology. We don't, so I'm stuck with voting Democratic (a centrist right wing party) or letting the Republican party (a Fascist party) win. Not ideal, but it's what we're stuck with absent total revolutionary change and rewriting the Constitution.
Idiotic talking points:
1. "Pelosi took impeachment off the table." Who's to say she won't put it back on when the timing is right and they have enough incontrovertible evidence to proceed?
2. Democrats "voted to go to war." No they didn't. The Resolution for the Use of Force was not a declaration of war nor was it ever intended by anyone but Bush to be a blank check to go to war. Go back and read the Democratic floor speeches at the time. Also, if you'll recall, Democrats called for Bush to seek further authorization from Congress before he attacked Iraq. Bush refused. Do we so easily forget history as it is rewritten before our eyes by the Corporate Media like Winston Smith did in Orwell's "1984"?
Too many on the left have bought into Corporate Media right wing framing. That's one factor that makes it difficult for Democrats to proceed.
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 41:
You're Welcome! Feel free to play again!
we've been in a lot of places for 100 some odd years,, we will be in Iraq at least that long, or until the oil runs out.
One of the right wing Corporate Media frames that must be pushed back against is the idea that if we leave Iraq, all hell will break loose. Really? All hell is already breaking loose. If the occupation ended tomorrow, there would be one less aggravating factor in Iraq. It could just as well be that a pullout by the US would actually decrease the violence there and help to stabilize the situation. Then Iraqis might be able to perceive the new government as something other than a puppet of US hegemony.
They forgot to rule out multinational corporate control of Iraq's oil, which is in the oil law they're trying to get passed there. That would be an easy end-run around the "American" control provision of this bill.
Uh yeah ...
I thought I had already heard about a number of permanent US military bases under construction in Iraq. They must have an interesting definition of permanent. Or perhaps I heard wrong...
It stands to reason that if the Iraqi parliament passes the new oil law turning control of there natural resources over to multi-national corporations, there will be nothing but chaos for the foreseeable future. Why should Iraqis stand for such naked thievery?
Some of you who want to keep claiming that the two parties are the same sound disappointed that the House passed this bill. Is it really that damaging to your sense of self and (alleged) claims?
Bob Roberts @ 56:
Are you saying that the claims are alleged? Or are you alleging (or claiming) there are allegations in the claims?
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 41:
Sure. Sounds good. You have a magic wand perhaps? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to "bring our kids home"? Please tell us how we go about it. What units move first? Where to they go? What assets are in place to manage transportation? What equipment can be left and what must be destroyed or repatriated? How is transport to be managed so that we don't increase security risks (for those troops not leaving on the first wave)? Are we taking Iraqis with us? What about the Iraqis who have been employed by/assisted us? Do we leave them?
Hmmm...maybe things aren't as simple as you're trying to make them.
All I can say is that it's too little, too late.
Good grief, I remember reading about the bases and the 'Taj Mahal' embassy in Baghdad quite some time ago and they're NOW being vocal about it?! After the bases are complete?! Oh yeah, our military will be there to protect the corporate interests in the ME. It's been the plan all along and really, now it's a bit late.
miss_kitty @ 57:
Are you saying that the claims are alleged? Or are you alleging (or claiming) there are allegations in the claims?
The second is clearly true, but not what I had in mind. I was trying to indicate that (IMO), while some of the claims reflect the actual opinions of their authors, some of the comments are likely written by people who don't actually think the parties are the same but are trying to convince Republican opponents not to vote for the Democrats.
we need to stop building the 104 acre embassy
Snowball, you're a dreamer just like me but,
Pelosi and the Democrats will never impeach Bush. I repeat NEVER!
and the Democrat surely did VOTE to declare war against IRAQ. You can paint it any way you wish but, you'd still very much incorrect.
The Iraq Resolution for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing the Iraq War. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
Dems in the Senate For (29) Against (21)
Dems in the House For (78) Against (126)
More than enough votes for 'Bloody' Bush and reason enough to disbelieve Democrat sincerity to ending the Iraq War.
Nice. I smell a veto, though.
Snowball @ 49:
That's far more eloquent than I can manage, but I agree completely with you. Wonder if anyone who disagrees will actually make an argument ...
Also, the "idiotic" talking points you refer to are actually neo-con talking points. People who keep repeating these points as gospel are actually doing Fox's News work for them.
Idiotic talking points:
1. "Pelosi took impeachment off the table." Who's to say she won't put it back on when the timing is right and they have enough incontrovertible evidence to proceed?
2. Democrats "voted to go to war." No they didn't. The Resolution for the Use of Force was not a declaration of war nor was it ever intended by anyone but Bush to be a blank check to go to war. Go back and read the Democratic floor speeches at the time. Also, if you'll recall, Democrats called for Bush to seek further authorization from Congress before he attacked Iraq. Bush refused. Do we so easily forget history as it is rewritten before our eyes by the Corporate Media like Winston Smith did in Orwell's "1984"?
Too many on the left have bought into Corporate Media right wing framing. That's one factor that makes it difficult for Democrats to proceed.
It's one thing to steal the oil from Iraq and share in spoils of war,
BUT!~ these Fucking republikkkan / gop's - Greedy Old Perverts
plan to keep it ALL for themselves.
She must have nubs . . .
Bob Roberts we exited Vietnam we surely will exit Iraq. The issue is that your type refuses to wake from you're crack dream state that the Iraq War is STILL WINNABLE.
You would have us there another twelve years from now with 60,000 dead and then whine HOW COULD WE HAVE LOST THIS WAR?
Maybe by then you'd have copped the job as project manager for the IRAQ WAR MEMORIAL on the Mall.
Hope you like black granite Boss?
Open a window the fucking troll shit stinks to high heaven ... not that their is one.
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 66:
WTF? Nice assumptions. Staying for 12 years is clearly what I had in mind....
So, instead of admitting you have no idea how quickly we can actually move our troops out, you set up a "straw man" by lying about what I wrote.
Go away, troll.
[Bob Roberts, let us decide who the trolls are and if and when they need to 'go away.' Thanks-Sitemonitor]
The BBC has a report on the CIA's "rendition" program, and it is not pretty.
"The committee said the UK services "used caveats specifically prohibiting any action being taken" when they handed over the intelligence on the men.
It says the UK security services did not foresee that the US authorities would disregard the caveats, given that they had honoured the caveat system for the past 20 years.
"This case shows a lack of regard on the part of the US for UK concerns - despite strong protests - and that has serious implications for the intelligence relationship," the report concluded.
"In fighting international terrorism it is clear that the US will take whatever action it deems is necessary, within US law, to protect its national security," it said.
"Although the US may take note of UK protests and concerns, it does not appear materially to affect their strategy; the rendition programme has revealed aspects of this usually close relationship that are surprising and concerning," the report warned. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6915652.stm
Some these fucking trolls are on the gop payroll and are very slick, others not so much.
they are like droids they pretendi to be human . . . Some can really fool ya !
Bob Roberts we can be out of Iraq before Christmas if we leave today.
And Bob Roberts the number of years currently vested in Iraq = 5
Number of years left to reach (17) the number of years vested in Vietnam = 12
Do the math!
It's just like that Twilight Zone episode with Claude Akins and the aliens on Maple Street, then they shoot the guy with the monkey wrench and all hell breaks loose! AAAAAUGH! While Karl Rove and Jimmy Jeff Gannon are up on the hill watching it all and laughing up their spacesuits. BTW, I always thought it was weird the way the alien goes "one to another...one to another..." when they go back into the ship-- like they were going in there to bugger each others brains out. Kinda like Karl and Jimmy Jeff.
What about this nonsense of banning Permanent Bases? This is ridiculous. The Congress has already appropriated the BILLIONS of money spent in building 4 super-bases that are either already built or nearing completion. The entire Congress is privy to the information that several BILLION dollars have already been spent on the construction of these bases. BILLIONS of dollars paid for by the people they represent. Now they are going through the motions of banning the permanent bases they have already long ago approved? What part of this DOES NOT MAKE SENSE? The MSM media, acting as the propaganda puppet is is, has not kept the public abreast of this knowledge but a few journalists have visited these bases.
"Quite literally multi-billions of dollars have gone into them. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of several billion dollars being sunk into base construction ("the numbers are staggering"). Since then, the base-building has been massive and ongoing.
In a country in such startling disarray, these bases, with some of the most expensive and advanced communications systems on the planet, are like vast spaceships that have landed from another solar system. Representing a staggering investment of resources, effort, and geostrategic dreaming, they are the unlikeliest places for the Bush administration to hand over willingly to even the friendliest of Iraqi governments."
Some eye-opening details of two of the these super-bases, Balad Air Base and Al-Asad Air Base as well as the largest embassy on the planet are written about in the article 'Can You Say "Permanent Bases"? The American Press Can't' by Tom Engelhardt.
by Tom Engelhardt
historians will be left asking the question why the hell did it take so long?
Closing the barn door after the cows have escaped...
cds @ 23:
More embarrassing ignorance. They are not 'bases' but American city/colonies in the middle of a desert. It would be like surrounding Las Vegas with walls, gun turrets, 24/7 helicopters, jet fighters, 24/7 50mm gun patrols, tanks, IR sensors, and satellite surveillance ... and then challenging someone to attack it with BB guns. That is exactly equivalent to the situation in Iraq.
fnordboy @ 8:
Think in terms of oil supplies. I'm thinking "permanent" as in "2125"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/world...
Zenrage @ 3:
No, that's incorrect. The four largest permanent airbases Bushco has established are large enough that C5As can land without fear from shoulder-fired missiles. The perimeter would be a kill zone, and the US does now have automated machine guns and other perimeter defenses unheard of in previous conflicts.
They would love to test and refine those weapons in a continued genocide of Iraqis (or "former Iraq"is) who might decide to attack those bases.
Iran could certainly dust those bases, so there are theater limitations. But if the policy is genocidal attrition -- and it is -- then the defense of locked down bases would be comparatively simple in the desert.
These permanent bases weren't George, the "Lesser's" idea, the concept started way back in Yale even before his daddy's tenure.
Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg pointed out such happenings in their white paper regarding Yale's "Skull & Bones", printed April 1991!
The creation of the New World Order, as envisioned by the Order of the Skull & Bones, which provides many of the building stones for the Project for the New American Century, called for the establishment of a string of permanent military bases throughout the world, including the Persian Gulf. George Walker Bush was able to partially accomplish the goal with bases in Saudia Arabia, Kuwati, Diego Garcia during the build up to and after the execution of Gulf War #1. George, the Lesser, is following his daddy's instruction to the letter in building these bases in Iraq.
At on time I had hoped that Daddy Bush and Barbara, the Mean, would exert influence on their son and rein him in - but now I see that they ARE influencing him and he is doing exactly what they feel is needed to complete the goals as defined by America's ruling families.
I was a Boy Scout sixty years ago and still remember pertinent parts of the Scout oath - which has consciously and sub-consciously influenced my conduct at times. I'm certain that George, the Lesser, remembers the lessons of his "moral right to rule" and to "control world affairs" that he learned as a "bonesman" years ago.
fnordboy @ 8:
The barn door nature of this bill is well recognized by everyone, fnordboy.
"Rep. Barbara Lee, floor speech, today:
To those who raise objections or want to suggest that this is only a symbolic measure or raise semantic questions about what a 'permanent base' is, let me say this: This is a serious issue, and I think we all recognize how much is at stake. The question is simple: do we support an endless occupation, or do we oppose it? We may disagree on many things about Iraq, but I hope we can agree that that an endless occupation is not the answer. Let's make that commitment today. Let's put the so-called Korea-model to bed. Let's tell our troops that when they come home, they will all come home. Let's pass this legislation."
In the context of the Speaker's statements, the issue is the concept of a Korea-style permanent military establishment, versus a plan of withdrawal which would bring the majority of the troops home, with only temporary bases for any troops that remain.
The statement of policy on oil resources is also a welcome step.
And lest you forget that there is another party in Congress, here are the Nays and Not Voting:
Republicans: Bachus, Baker, Barrett (SC), Barton (TX), Blackburn, Brady (TX), Burgess, Campbell (CA), Cannon, Flake, Franks (AZ), Gingrey, Hastert, Herger, Inglis (SC), Jordan, King (IA), Linder, Miller (FL), Pearce, Sali, Shadegg, Thornberry, Turner
---- NOT VOTING 9 ---
Republicans: Cubin, Davis, Jo Ann, LaHood, Wamp, Young (AK)
And four Democrats not voting: Carson, Clarke, Marshall, Stark
Honest George @ 80:
This conflation of neocon theory with 'skull & bones' is a huge canard.
Is it any surprise that conspirators plot?
Clearly the PNAC signers did not all go to Yale, and clearly going to Yale --- as Senator Kerry did -- or being in that fraternity as a college kid is not equivalent to holding faith with a conspiracy to defraud the United States like that of the PNAC signers.
6th Extinction @ 74:
Yes, under the Republican 108th and 109th Houses, those bases were funded. Since the Dems took control, the situation is different. From today's bill:
"(13) The House of Representatives has passed 6 separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq including three of which have been enacted into law by the President: Public Law 109-289, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 110-28." (text of the bill)
-- 109th Congress --
109-364 was the 2007 defense authorization bill, passed in late Sept. 2006. I believe the relevant language was stripped out in confererence.
-- 110th Congress --
109-289 was a continuation bill for the 2007 defense authorization bill, passed under Dem control.
110-28 was the supplemental:
(Sec. 3301) Prohibits any funds from being obligated or expended by the U.S. government to: (1) establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq; or (2) exercise U.S. control over any oil resource of Iraq.
The same language is in today's bill.
(I haven't checked, but I'm sure that Bush has signing statements which 'strip out' this language for himself, and if this latest bill gets to him, he will probably say so again. But this is a much cleaner version of this language, which will put any signing statement into clearer opposition to the will of Congress)
Snowball @ 34:
You are absolutely right. Republicans bitch and moan about how big government is the problem then they get elected and prove it. The amount of obstruction the Republicans have been orchestrating is on record pace to be the most in a session of Congress. I certainly understand the frustration many of us are feeling about the Bush administration's arrogance and disdain for Congress. Fear is not the only tool in the government hating GOP. We must keep the cynicism in check and recognize those who are attempting to use it to the extent that it completely destroys our faith in government. Most of us who come to this site certainly still have some faith in government. We should at least keep this in mind as something positive. Being critical and opinionated are good things that should not be confused with being cynical.
(I reversed the bill numbers for the 109th Congress. Oops)
Paul in LA #83 - Thanks for the information.
I also want to add to the pile, candidate Kerry's statement in the first debate of 2004, in front of 60 million Americans.
"The United States has no legitimate longterm interests in staying in Iraq."
The word 'legitimate' has for some reason disappeared from the debate transcript. Senator Kerry said this after noting that 'some of the bases in Iraq have a permanent look to them.'
Also appropriate to note, Kerry won in 2004, by a landslide.
Wow!!!!
170+ Republicans finally put their Nation 1st, before their Party????
Good Christ, perhaps there is hope for republicans after all.
After 6 straight years as Enablers in Chief, and rubber stamp
specialist, could they actually become part of the solution?
They will, or face extinction by ballot box.
Well gee... Wouldn't this bill be more effective had it been passed BEFORE we started building them?~! They are almost done now!
Motorhead Vette '67 @ 71:
I don't know how long it will take, but six months doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Once we acknowledge that returning all of our troops takes months (rather than days), then Senator Clinton's position that the WH should be setting timetables for withdrawal doesn't seem unreasonable.
I mention this because I'm damn tired of reading comments that assume that the government can snap its fingers and have all our troops home in days.
BTW ... I follow your math. 17 - 5 is 12 sure enough. The claim that we should stay in Iraq for 12 years is still not in any of my comments.
Tom @74.........pretty amazing article!! I check into Common Dreams often, but missed this one.
When I first read the headline here this morning, albeit a day late, just for a moment, I had a silly glimmer of some hope.........why, I haven't a clue.
Why should we in the states pay for this lavish, feed-your-filthy-face consumption??
Nice way of forcing Bush and the neocons to deomonstrate that their intention has alsways been colonialization of Iraq in order to confiscate Iraq's natural resources. Bush will either veto or do a signing statement stating that he will do as he pleases.
Bush has said, "We will never leave Iraq... not so long as I am president".
No Permanent Bases in IRAQ?
Not According to Hillary:
in this NPR story...
This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.
Okay, how many loopholes can we find for Smirk to ignore this?
1 - Reclassify the bases as not permanent. Easy one.
2 - Make sure people are only assigned as temporary duty but forever revolving.
3 - "exercise U.S. control of the oil resources" Ah, the Oil Law, yeah, the corporations will be controlling 70% of that, not the US Gov't.
4 - "use of any funds provided by any law" - Fine, they'll get the cash elsewhere.
So, in essence I see this law doing NOTHING. It's just more propaganda to make it look like they're not behaving as little kids/corporate raiders.
Cheney must be shitting in his panties about now, being denied the oil they started the war for.
Eric in Ottowa wrote:
"I thought I had already heard about a number of permanent US military bases under construction in Iraq. They must have an interesting definition of permanent. Or perhaps I heard wrong…"
Of course you heard wrong, silly boy. We are not building any permanent bases in Iraq - what we are building are "enduring" bases. You see, it's just like, "we don't engage in torture," what we do are called "cruelties."
For more on "enduring bases", do a search and find enlightening articles like this one:
http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2005/0728pre...
naschkatze @ 7:
I predict that Senate Republicans will back down and support the president
(wow, now that's really reaching, isn't it?)
Paul in L.A. #82 - Thanks for keeping me honest - but I am a believer that sometimes the simplest influences can cause the greatest ripples.
Honest George @ 100:
Overgeneralizing is the failure of reason. People who need a secret society to replace AEI, the Federalist Society, the Young College Republicans, the CCC, and the other parts of the stinking anti-American rightwing cabal is throwing out your shoes because your socks have holes.
Paul in L.A. #101 - You sound a bit haughty but I am able to discern when I'm being taught a valuable lesson -thank you for that as well. I re-visited the AEI, and for the first time ever, the Center for Contemporary Conflict -which I assume was what you were refering to when you mentioned CCC. The CCC provided me with the instant knowledge that it must figure prominently in our "leaders" viewpoint and education re; the middle-east. e.g. Stephen Kelley's thesis "Better Lucky Than Good: Operation Earnest Will as Gunboat Diplomacy."
But to beat what is probably now a dead horse - generalization provides a means of shorthand that allows us to .... oh, never mind.
No, CCC = Concerned Citizens Council, otherwise known as the KKK (get it?).
MS Gov. Haley Barbour, former Senator Macaca Allen of VA, and on down through the racist rightwing, including all the GOBs (good old boys) who ignore the racist & hate speech of their peers.
Anyhow, Senator Kerry was a Skull & Bones member when he was at Yale, and that doesn't mean ANYTHING in terms of being part of the conspiracy of the rightwing bastards who currently infest our government.
No one else of the well known 'Bonesmen' volunteered twice to serve in the military, including specifying combat command duty in a Swiftboat the second time. None joined Kerry in helping found the Winter Soldiers Investigation. (Wow, if you haven't seen that, it's quite a read). None joined him in outing BCCI (the Bush-associated terrorism-funding bank), and none joined him in outing Iran-Contra. And he outed the permanent airbases scheme of Bushco in the first debate of 2004.
So this is why I may seem a bit haughty in rebutting the S & B overgeneralization. It's a college fraternity, which apparently has brought together some seriously evil people, but which is in itself not anything more than a frat.
Cheers.
Login or Register to post comments.