Top General Says U.S. May Maintain Permanent U.S. Bases In Iraq
Top General Says U.S. May Maintain Permanent U.S. Bases In Iraq
Yesterday, Army Gen. John Abizaid, who runs U.S. operations in Iraq, said the United States may maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Reuters reports:
The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.
While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee he could not rule that out.
Previously, the Bush administration has said that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes, 12/8/05:
CHARLIE ROSE: They think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq?
KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job.
CHARLIE ROSE: And do we not want to keep bases there?
KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq, 1/28/06:
We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis…[I]t is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq.
Times, apparently, have changed.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
81 Responses to “Top General Says U.S. May Maintain Permanent U.S. Bases In Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Karen Huges…gee, if she said so, then it must be true.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:20 amWell Judd ‘Times, apparently, have changed.’ , said with sarcasm I assume. So the Iraqis have always known that the bases were being built, so presumably do any of the other Great Game players - then for whom was the lie propagated? Rhetorical question, of course.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:24 amis that to protect the flow of oil or direct the flow of oil?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:26 amDidn’t we know all along we wouldn’t be giving up those bases?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:30 amWe all know that old Bushie went into this unjust war for oil. Why would they build a permanent base if they were not going to stay. Karen Hughes is a liar. What do you expect from a Republican.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:33 amWalter66 I think its both plus many other Iraqi Natural Resources that the bush cabal got their hnds on and stole from the Iraqi people.
That’s why Iran is pushing back so hard.Saudi Arabia also has a Oil stake in this otherwise The Saudi’s would be alongside of their brothers…
Its all about Conquering for Profit……..
Karen H wouldn’t know how to speak the truth anymore than Ms OIl-tanker-Condi Rice.
Interesting note : laura Pickles Lump bush stated America was ready for a woman president a Republican one ,looks like bush co is going to pass the Mantle Of the Vulcans onto Condi and that wouldn’t suprise me in the least by 2008.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:35 amIn order to appease the opposition in Saudi Arabia, the US moved bases from their soil into Iraq. The bases are permanent, at least until a new regime takes power in the US that has a more viable strategic vision for Us interests. Everything this adminstration does works counter to US interests abroad and domestically, including making permanent military bases in the Middle East.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:39 amThis may win for the biggest “No sh#t” post of the day. As if we’re going to go there, blow up the country, lose a ton of great soldiers, and NOT keep bases there? Really, isn’t this THE reason we’re there? A jumping off point to attack Syria and Iran?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:39 amPermanent bases….What a surprise.
Guess no one over at the Executive or DOD has seen the reports indcating Iraqi’s are fighting against an OCCUPYING foreign force, OURS! Me, I think they’ve seen it, I don’t think they care. What are the lives of some poor grunts to them? Nothing. Now if it was their kids serving over there, it’d be different on many levels.
This war was all about control of Iraq’s OIL and playing the neo-con domino theory game.
Duhhhhhh dumbya.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:43 amThis is a genuine question - is there a place we’ve invaded that doesn’t have a base?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:46 amLove that phrase. Nice.
Karen Hughes is what I call a “professional liar”, and she’s quite good at it. So if she says something, you can be damn sure it ain’t so.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:48 amVietnam
March 15th, 2006 at 10:49 amWalt we lost that war remember, we ABANDONED our bases there. But we built a lot of them before we abondaned them….
March 15th, 2006 at 10:53 amIronic isn’t it? Larry Lindsey got fired for telling the truth, way back in 02 about how much the war would cost and Karen Hughes lies as part of her job.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:53 amwe have never completely left a country we fought, why start now
March 15th, 2006 at 10:56 amCheney will resign due to health reasons and Condi will be maneuvered into the VP spot. This is the rumor anyway. Bet it happens. (Juniors “pet” name for her is 44)
http://www.condiriceisangry.com/
March 15th, 2006 at 10:56 amHey somebody has to live there after all the Iraqis are killed.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:57 amI thought unbelievable was asking about “active” bases
March 15th, 2006 at 10:59 amVietnam
Comment by walter66 — March 15, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Walt we lost that war remember, we ABANDONED our bases there. But we built a lot of them before we abondaned them….
Comment by Clif — March 15, 2006 @ 10:53 am
I should have specified, but I didn’t want to limit the question, because I figured there was something like this as well. So, Vietnam is the only country we invaded where there isn’t an active military base? What about anything military like - like planes or troops?
March 15th, 2006 at 11:01 amhttp://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
http://benefits.military.com/ misc/ installations/ Landing_Page.jsp
http://benefits.military.com/ misc/ installations/ Browse_WorldMap.jsp
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/basestructure1999.pdf
March 15th, 2006 at 11:02 amBig Boy Karen Huge strikes again.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:05 am“finish the job”, “stay the course” … not a rhetorical question:
March 15th, 2006 at 11:08 amdoes anyone know just what that “job” is? the “course”?
is any leader stating what that is? …other than oil, of course…
you cannot decide to stay unless you are asked……..would i go in your house and just stay ?????
March 15th, 2006 at 11:12 amNow theres news of you stayiong i hope the Iraqi start kicking your arse
March 15th, 2006 at 11:12 am#23 If you had a big enough gun and pointed it at my head, would I have any choice?
March 15th, 2006 at 11:14 am#19 - No, we do not maintain a military presence in Grenada or Panama either (although we have several bases in the vicinity). Then again, Grenada has no natural resources we can squander/exploit and the canal, well, I think we gave up on getting the canal back some time ago. Other than that, we have typically maintained a presence anywhere we’ve undertaken military engagements…hell, look at S. Korea (It’s 56 years later and we still have bases there).
March 15th, 2006 at 11:17 am#16 I hope Condi is on the ticket. Condi, Frist or McCain will not, I repeat NOT, be elected. For obvious reasons, Condi will not fare well in the South. Frist has too much working against him as he, even in the South, he looks like a big business, profit on the poor, Terri Shaivo diagnosing jerk. And for McCain, nobody buys his bull any longer. He is the flip flop king and is just a puss.
So, bring on George Allen or try to find some other plastic figurine because the above mentioned are a no go for certain.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:32 amAfter we got tossed out of Saudi Arabia, the US felt the need to build bases elsewhere in the Middle East. What better spot than in Iraq? It’d give Bush “easy” bombing access to Iran and Syria.
I think the reasons for this are two fold. 1) Oil and 2) “protecting” Israel
So, America, how does it feel to be an Empire? Like? So you can drive your SUVs? So you can strut around the globe acting like you know a thing or two?
Or do you like the big asses bulls eye that Bush has painted on your personal butt for every angry non-American to clearly spot their aim at?
March 15th, 2006 at 11:35 amwhat i want to see in Iraq is the iraqis sticking together and just bombing the American troops………..going to send email al-jaafari
March 15th, 2006 at 11:37 am#29 I’m pretty sure both you and I agree that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place, but what I’d like to see is nobody bombing anybody. Let’s just get the hell out of there.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:40 amFreedom is on the march.
We need those bases to insure our bloody grip on oil. It was in the plan from the onset.
The only ones the Repubs are fooling are their own faithful 37%.
The entire rest of the world is on to us.
But with usual lack of foresight… have Repubs have not considered the cost and political consequences of maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq.
This action would strip away all pretense of moral legiitimacy and put the world on notice that America is now in the business of conquest, much as Hitler did with the invasion of Poland. Global conflict is building with each new goose step we take in the middle east.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:43 am#31 - Freedom is on the march…
For Iraqis, this includes the freedom to die at the hands of America.
Heck of a job, Bushy!
March 15th, 2006 at 11:44 amThis is not being well covered in the press. The American people as a whole need to know about these bases and their potential for future trouble. This is another issue the Democrats coulls bring into the political discussion.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:44 am#28 Just know that MOST of us did not elect the bastard.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:47 am#33–Duh, ya think? “Our” lousy corporate media are a complete joke. If it ain’t in the press releases from the Whitehouse, it ain’t covered.
And except for a few true patriots like Feingold and Conyers, the dems seem to have adopted the slogan of “We’re just like the republicans, only slightly less so”.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:48 amDidn’t we all know that we would remain there permanently - not believing the lies from the admin? Haven’t we all read about bases being constructed in Iraq that don’t seem to be of the “temporary” kind? Didn’t we go there for oil in the first place, so why should we have ever intended to abandon the oil fields?
March 15th, 2006 at 11:53 amEvery evil and conniving angle that was suspected (with good reason) in this admin. has been proven to be coming true.
The ability to lie with impunity is a prerequisite for employment under Bush, the liar-in-chief.
#27
Condi may not fair well among all WHITE southerners- but the rethug “planners” may very well be planning on playing the race card. The black/minority voting block is huge as you know. If this block is mostly lost by the dems due to Condis’ race…? As much as he’s despised by myself and most- Karl is a genius.
BTW- We’re not all that far off thread with the Condi issue. She surely supports permanent bases to keep the oil flowing. (Some folks forget she was on the board of Exxon.)
March 15th, 2006 at 11:56 amThree more countries we abandoned after war: Mexico, Somalia and Lebanon.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:59 amExcuse me…that’s Chevron
March 15th, 2006 at 12:01 pmHalf a TRILLION dollars…
$500,000,000,000…
Enough money to keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years…
Republiscum hate entitlement programs, and love tax cuts for the rich and war…
…but for these dumb a*s inbred Bushites to justify BORROWING HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars …
…from our enemies…
…to “LIBERATE” Iraqis…
…who HATE OUR GUTS…
…is TREASON…
…pure and simple…
You know who they are…
…the inbred Bushites are your friends, neighbors, and family members…
…The time has come to make “conservative” a DIRTY WORD…
…synonymous with TREASON…
…Bushites are TRAITORS who must be ostracized and shunned…
March 15th, 2006 at 12:04 pmWell hell! What did we think was going to happen when this administration started pouring money into building bases?
May 15, 2005
A year ago, President Bush boldly said: “Iraqis do not support an indefinite “occupation and neither does America.” Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president’s $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world’s largest embassy. Despite the president’s assurances, the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html
March 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pmMost of the admin is associated with oil - even Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is a former Unocal man - it is no wonder that they are obsessed with oil, and obtaining it all, and then ruling the world.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:14 pmHaving bases in Iraq will make it easier to extradite Bush so he can stand trial there.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:17 pm.
no matter how “stable” Iraq may become, we’ll always be in danger while we’re there… they’ll never stop wanting to chase us out…
March 15th, 2006 at 12:21 pmDoes anyone know what happened to Karen Hughes? She was in the news for quite some time and then disappeared. Was she failing at doing the administrations bidding?
March 15th, 2006 at 12:30 pm…BTW- We’re not all that far off thread with the Condi issue. She surely supports permanent bases to keep the oil flowing. (Some folks forget she was on the board of [Chevron].)
Condi is not as rich as the other members of the Bush Cabal, but she’s still rich enough to have an oil tanker named after her.
Yep, oil is the reason we’re in Iraq. With civil war breaking out, will the Bush Cabal have the military strength to withstand constant attacks by Iraqi Nationals?
March 15th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#38
From the New York Observer:
At 9 a.m. on Saturday, March 11, Spike Lee sat behind a desk piled high with the daily papers in a Regency Hotel suite, dressed in a black blazer embossed with a white Yankees emblem, black pants and round thick-rimmed tortoiseshell glasses. He was there to talk about his new thriller, the Clive Owen–Denzel Washington bank-heist flick Inside Man.
Instead, he was talking about When the Levees Broke, his forthcoming documentary about Hurricane Katrina, and Condoleezza Rice. He was cracking up, giggling and cackling—in fact, caggling.
Mr. Lee recalled the story of a shopper who approached Ms. Rice at the pricey Ferragamo shoe store on Fifth Avenue during Katrina and reportedly shouted “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!†before Secret Service physically removed her
When Spike gets done with Condi’s image, the only blacks that will vote for her will be of the self-hating variety.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:34 pmThanks for the answers to my question. My history pre-1990 is fuzzier the further back in time we go. Hope to improve it :)
March 15th, 2006 at 12:38 pmNOT ONLY SHOULD THE U.S. MAINTAIN A PERMANENT PRESENCE IN THE GULF REGION AS A PRE-EMPTION AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE TERROR ATTACKS, and as a pre-established forward operating area should such an attack happen and we be required to confront the Middle East country which had sponsored that attack…
BUT THOSE PERMANENT BASES SHOULD BE SO CLOSE TO SAUDI ARABIA AS TO BE INSIDE SAUDI ARABIA, that being the #1 country that funds and supports anti-western terrorism world-wide.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:42 pmI wonder where these “permanent†bases in Iraq are going to be located. Wouldn’t be near any oil fields would they? (I don’t know, just suspicious)
http://www.rigzone.com/ news/ image_detail.asp?img_id=367
I sometimes wonder why?
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21626.pdf
March 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pmBUT THOSE PERMANENT BASES SHOULD BE SO CLOSE TO SAUDI ARABIA AS TO BE INSIDE SAUDI ARABIA, that being the #1 country that funds and supports anti-western terrorism world-wide.
Comment by Dem02020 #51
Dum02020,
…and you and every one of your inbred, anti-American, sycophantic, Bushite loyalist, TREASONOUS co-conspirators…
…should be exiled their to hold down the freakin’ fort…
…we’ve no need for your dumb a*s, TRAITOROUS kind here…
March 15th, 2006 at 1:06 pmThis is news? The Americans have built gigantic bases all over Iraq and they have no intention of leaving. Why do you think we invaded in the first place? The crazed Bush cabal should, however, remember the “permanent” bases established in Viet Nam such as Camh Ran Bay and Danang, also brought to you courtesy of KBR. The Americans won’t leave Iraq voluntarily but they will be forced out sooner than they think.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pmNo you don’t get the hell out there yet. The rest of the world demands another 20-3000 Americans die first to punsish your asses and make sure you never let your dumbass President do anything like this again.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:20 pmHello all,
There are some good news stories about what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. I am a public affairs officer for this area and would like to facilitate the stories that are not getting out in the main stream media. Please read stories on http://www.centcom.mil/ sites/ uscentcom1/ Shared%20Documents/ news.aspx. Thanks and keep up the good information.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#49- The US DID have a base in Saudi Arabia, The Prince Sultan Air Base. That base was one of the reasons Osama used for attacking the US. Our presense was an affront to “Islam”, according to him. After 9/11, the US quietly closed the base.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pmComment by 1LT Brian Anderson — March 15, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Reminds me of the religious people who come to your door to convert you. And telemarketers. Annoying. But I guess it works on the lowest common denominator, or they wouldn’t do it. Someone should tell the Lt. that we are not the LCD.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:28 pmunbelievable,
This guy can’t be for real- is he?
March 15th, 2006 at 1:31 pm“Condi may not fair well among all WHITE southerners- but the rethug “planners†may very well be planning on playing the race card. The black/minority voting block is huge as you know.”
Black voters aren’t fools. In fact, based on voting track record, they’re the most aware bloc of voters in the country. Is there any other group that accords the preznit less than a 5% approval rating?
Kindasleazy has no supprt in the Black community and will NOT pull many voters from that bloc. If that’s a major component to their “strategy” then it will fail.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:36 pm1LT Brian Anderson while you are at it please explain to all us tax payers why a officer who gets paid, $3170.10 a month is wisely using his valuable time here trying to change the political views of the American citizens. Instead of directly engaging the terrorists, is our lack of lock step agreement on the fiasco of both Iraq and Afghanistan such a danger to the pentagon that such a highly trained individual such as yourself needs to spend his time here. Are we her so dangerous to your war effort that the pentagon thinks it a wise use of the limited budget resources that it has. I mean we have to cut funding for headstart, programs for the elderly, poor, but we have enough money to pay your salary to “engage†us on the home front with your “approved†press releases. I’m sure that a hard charging individual such as your self can not believe your time and our limited resources can not be better spent.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#54- Better idea- Complete The Mission!!!!! The American people are being bled dry, financially, by Halliburton ,and others, who are supposed to be “Rebuilding Iraq”. That is not a part of your “job description”. All the “shiny happy stories” in the world will not change that fact. So go sell “crazy” somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:43 pmI think it is appropiate that an oil tanker is named after Condi, after all both are full of crude.
March 15th, 2006 at 1:48 pmunbelievable,
This guy can’t be for real- is he?
Comment by WiscoDuk — March 15, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
I think he thinks he is (Bowling for Columbine)… he just doesn’t know that we aren’t his usual recruits. :)
March 15th, 2006 at 1:51 pmThat the US was planning to stay in Iraq was reported almost right after the the invasion. The US announced plans to “have long-term military relations” with the new government in Iraq.
Later it was revealed the US was building “enduring” bases in Iraq.
The Pentagon and the White House have both denied the presence of permanent bases all along, all the while obfuscating and giving non-answers, like the one given by Gen. Abizaid.
To say that the US “may maintain” bases is misleading at best. There is no question these bases are being built to ensure a permanent American presence in Iraq.
Global Securities has a great article on these “enduring” bases, complete with names for each one of the bases -both in English and Arabic: Iraq Facilities.
Global Policy Forum has a great deal of information on the Iraq occupation and also about these so-called “enduring” bases: ‘Enduring Bases’ in Iraq: US Presence for Decades
Also, let’s not forget the high financial cost of the construction and maintenance of said bases. As of September 2004, “The total cost of the Iraq war has reached $125 billion to $140 billion, estimates Mr. Adams. Reconstruction boosts the total to as high as $175 billion. Permanent bases would keep the tab running for years to come.”
US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math
All of this to “protect the flow of oil”. How much carnage will the Iraqis endure so the US and the UK can satisfy their thirst for oil?
March 15th, 2006 at 1:52 pmHow many “cookies” do ya get when you visit LT. Brian? (Tracking that is)
March 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pmWASHINGTON - The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.
America the nation of petty murdering thiefs
March 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pmA U.S.-led raid on a suspected site of terror network al Qaeda in Iraq kills 11 civilians — including five children — according to Iraqi police, but the U.S. military says the death toll from the strike north of Balad was four.
The American Goverment - mass murdering petty thiefs
March 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pm#55 …a base in Saudi Arabia, The Prince Sultan Air Base …was one of the reasons Osama used for attacking the US …After 9/11, the US quietly closed the base.
I agree partly. It was one of the reasons why the Saudi ‘royal family’ (GWB’s “good friends”) funded and directed the attacks of that day.
And what the U.S. response to that Saudi attack should have been was a massive and hostile military build-up to that base, instead of a closing of it (and instead of a senseless and distractionary invasion and occupation of Iraq).
A massive and hostile military build-up of that base in response to the attacks of 9-11 (and a bombing FLAT of the Saudi ‘royal palace’, and the absolute destruction of that murderous ‘royal family’).
I’d have gone in a heartbeat.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:03 pmLike all of the Bushies, Karen Hughes is more a reverse barometer than disseminator of truthful information. If some strategy or action appears adavantageous to the Bushies and their neo-con masters, you can pretty much confirm they’re following said course should Hughes come out denying it.
March 15th, 2006 at 4:55 pmAlthough some U.S. officials have stated several times that Iran has never breached international regulations on nuclear activities, others accuse Iran of attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons.
These contradictions have actually made other nations even more distrustful of the double-standard policies of the United States, which will have serious repercussions for the U.S. and the entire international community.
Due to its political confusion, the U.S. has exacerbated crises in the Middle East.
U.S. officials’ constant accusations against Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, will only increase tension in the region, which are already reaching the breaking point.
Therefore, the United States should formally apologize to Iran for its unjustified slanders of the Islamic Republic over the past three years. Otherwise, Iran may file a lawsuit against the United States in international courts.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pmThis is why there is no exit plan from Iraq. The neocons intend to NEVER leave.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:30 pmAfter WWII, Germans were ashamed of their country for initiating a war of aggression and the atrocities committed in their name.. Well, now I’m ashamed to be an American for the same reasons. We have committed war crimes under the ruling of the Nuremberg tribunal. Bush et al, have planned and waged a war of aggression ini Iraq(crimes against peace) and by torturing and murdering POWs at Abu Ghraib and the destruction of Fallujah with many civilian casualties, have committed atrocities(crimes against humanity). Our leaders must be arrested, tried and hung for their war crimes.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:44 pmAfter I saw the headline on this item, I thought that Air Force 1 had experienced an accident.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pmhttp://enews.earthlink.net/ article/ gen?guid=20060315/ 44179f50_3ca6_15526200603151593384672
Jeeze, a real bird?
This administration just doesn’t get it do they? This isn’t Germany or Japan after WWII, those nations people didn’t continue to fight after the wars were over. Also they didn’t have terrorist and other foreign fighters coming in to fight and kill our soldiers. There were American soldiers marrying German and Japanese women, because the whole world had been at war and people were tired of fighting. Terrorism as we know it didn’t exist at that time. It is obvious to me that Karen Hughes and the other morons that work for the President have forgotten history and didn’t take the time to read about it. Someone once said, “Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and that’s what’s happened here. This is another Viet Nam if I’ve ever seen one.
The biggest problem is that you get a bunch of stupid ugly Americans like Hughes, Rove, Libby, Rummy together and they think they can make pies out of horse manure and sell them to the public. What are they smoking, it must be something illegal? No fool in his or her right mind would want to try to keep US troops in Iraq permanently to get mamed and kill by terrorist who want to die. It doesn’t take a lead weight to fall on me to see these guys and gal are nuts. Our troops are already up to their necks in terrorist and if you leave them there it’s open season on them. If they want to stay in Iraq so bad, why don’t they personally move there? They wouldn’t and we all know why.
Thirdly, we don’t have anything to gain by staying in Iraq except dead soldiers. It’s not like they are giving us free oil or anything. For those fools who think we need to stay in Iraq, I say start making more coffins for our soldiers. How many flag draped coffin does it take for them to ge the message? I’m all for war, but I’d like our troops to have leaders who understand how to win and have a plan to win. We don’t need more General who will say what ever the pentagon wants to save their job. What we need is a General who doesn’t care more about his job than he does his troops. I’m sure that General Abizaid is a fine man, loving husband and father, but he has no guts when it comes to standing up and telling the truth. I don’t expect him to say we are losing, but he knows we aren’t winning either. Why is it that every three or four months the President has to go around making speeches about how we are winning in Iraq.
The reason is that we have no plan to win in Iraq and haven’t ever had one. I served under General Tommy Franks in Germany and I saw what type of General he was. He was a political General then and still is to this day. My commanders submitted a recommendation of a Meritorious Medal to be awarded to me for a job well done, General Franks turned it down, saying , “That award was reserved for high ranking officers, not enlisted men”, or words that effect. I was a Sergeant and my commanders once introduced me to General Colin Powell, by telling Gen Powell I was the top soldier in my job in Germany. My commanders obviously thought very highly of me or they wouldn’t have recommended me for a medal that few enlisted soldiers are given. I was so disappointed at one point I refused to except the downgraded medal Gen Franks did approve, because I had already been awarded it several times before. My point in telling this story is that Generals often act without all of the facts. They recommended me for the highest medal because I had the best statics in the European theater of operation, had personally designed a new procedure for the entire United States Army to use without being asked to, and was already one to the most highly decorated soldiers in my unit.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:36 pmGod damn! The shit just don’t end.
Well, we called it years ago, once again.
I just love the fact that when we were all saying this years ago, the trolls called us conspiracy theorists and that it wasn’t true. The trolls have once again been proven to be out of touch with reality.
I will be very interesting to see what else will turn out to be true.
March 15th, 2006 at 8:50 pmI will be very interesting to see what else will turn out to be true.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — March 15, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
Not only about the “enduring” bases the trolls denied over and over and again, but also about the ultimate reason for the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this tidbit:
“Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend,” [Gen. Abizaid] said.
“Flow of resources on which our nation depends”? What resources could he possibly be talking about? Could it be (gasp!) oil? But time and again, the trolls insisted the invasion was to free Iraqis, to “democratise” them, and had nothing to do with access to natural resources.
I will quote Gen Abizaid next time someone tells me the invasion had nothing to do with oil.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:01 amThe radio report: immigration nation…
For those who caught the Reid radio hit on WTPS Miami this morning, here are links to the topics we talked about. ……
March 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amRegarding the idea of a Permanent Military presence in the gulf region:
As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Armed Forces found themselves in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power (the jurisdiction of all U.S. law enforcement being contained only within the borders of the U.S., but the jurisdiction of the U.S. Armed Forces, or any nation’s military in matters pertaining to National Security and Justice, that jurisdiction is global)…
Again, the U.S. Armed Forces finding themselves in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power, the Bush Administration strangely made that foreign power out to be Iraq, when common sense (and the Joint Congressional Inquiry) made it out to be Saudi Arabia.
And the explanation for this strange difference of opinion is controversial for sure, and involves oil, politics, arms, ‘pre-war intelligence’, the Carlyle Group, somebody’s “good friends”…
…the list is near endless, and controversial indeed.
But as to the Permanent presence of the U.S. Military in the gulf region: It’s an absolute necessity.
Should this country be struck again by terrorists (of the same nationality and motivation as that of the 9-11 attackers), then our U.S. Armed Forces would find themselves again in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power; and the notion that they would have to saddle up and take the months (and nearly a year) to establish even a presence in that gulf region (as opposed to an actual response, which the quicker would be the better; and lightning quick the best), the idea of all that troop movement and the time it would take, is against National Security, and against Justice were it called for, were an attack to happen.
And call it whatever you like, but I say it here: Not only has all the funding and all the people and all the motivation for these terrorists attacks come from one particular region in the world, but the continued threat of those attacks also continue to come from that one particular region in the world.
The gulf region.
And so to summarize: The idea that the U.S. Military should completely leave the gulf region, and that they should maintain no permanent presence there, is certainly against the idea of a National Security response to, and Justice for, any terrorist attacks that might happen in the future, as directed and financed by the people of the gulf region (which I point out again, is a response and a Justice that can not suffer the time and motion to move so many so far, and still be effective; and again I say, to a place that was not at all sensible that it should be Iraq, when Saudi Arabia was not only the foreign power for our U.S. Armed Forces to confront then, but will be for any future attack that may happen).
AND SO I POST FOR A PERMANENT MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE GULF REGION, AS CLOSE TO SAUDI ARABIA AS IS POSSIBLE
March 16th, 2006 at 12:38 pm[…] It appears that conservatives caved to pressure from the administration. Testifying before Congress in April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “did not directly answer†a question about whether the Bush administration was planning for permanent bases, and Gen. Abizaid has refused to rule it out. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has asked for more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq. […]
June 9th, 2006 at 6:35 pmRoyal Bank Contact
regulations banking
April 7th, 2008 at 4:31 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pmWild Bill
I eat my own boogers http://www.ncaaedge.info [url=http://www.ncaaedge.info]AWESOME place to go[/url] http://ncaaedge.info
April 8th, 2008 at 8:06 am