Congressional Conservatives Quietly Strip Provision That Prohibited Permanent Bases In Iraq
Congressional Conservatives Quietly Strip Provision That Prohibited Permanent Bases In Iraq
Reuters reports that conservatives are quietly backtracking from their earlier stance against permanent base construction in Iraq:
Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.
As ThinkProgress noted last month, the Senate acted to unanimously pass an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that clearly stated that none of the appropriated funds should be used for permanent base construction. In March, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) wrote on ThinkProgress that the House had unanimously accepted her amendment prohibiting permanent base construction.
The amendment served an important purpose – it indicated to Iraqis that the U.S. did not plan to remain in their country forever. A Jan. 2006 Knight Ridder poll found that at least half of Iraqis supported attacks against U.S. troops. The poll suggested one reason for Iraqi hostility was the common belief that the U.S. planned to remain in Iraq:
The poll also found that 80 percent of Iraqis think the United States plans to maintain permanent bases in the country even if the newly elected Iraqi government asks American forces to leave. Researchers found a link between support for attacks and the belief among Iraqis that the United States intends to keep a permanent military presence in the country.
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.
Next week, the House will hold a floor debate about the administration’s Iraq policy. Rep. Lee has already indicated she plans to make permanent base construction a key part of that debate. Call your congressman and tell them where you stand.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
80 Responses to “Congressional Conservatives Quietly Strip Provision That Prohibited Permanent Bases In Iraq”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
can they just please go back to being the do nothing congress. when they do things, they just screw up
June 9th, 2006 at 6:29 pmOf course the administration plans to occupy Iraq permanently. You didn’t really think they’re building all those bases and the biggest embassy in the world for nothing, do you? But then, if history is instructive, even the best laid plans can wind up in a scramble for the last helicopter off the roof.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:31 pmThank goodness for al-Zawahiri getting blown up, so no one will notice the cons stripping out this provision on the bases we’re not building in Iraq.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:33 pm/sarcasm off
Zarqawi — not Zawahiri — oops
June 9th, 2006 at 6:34 pmThey’ve been building the bases for over a year. I’d sent some info to TP about a month ago on it. Never made the news. It was on Buzzflash. Had photos of the sonstruction and talked about how large the complex was. The were calling in an embassy - but it was clearly a campus of buildings… surprise!
June 9th, 2006 at 6:39 pmVietnam deja vu. When will the helicopters lift off the roof of the U.S. Embassy in the final evacution of Bagdad?
June 9th, 2006 at 6:50 pmI have a well placed source in KBR who has served two tours of duty with that firm in Iraq as a timekeeper for workers doing construction on military bases.
At last count there were 16 permanent bases being built replete with communications, fencing, dining halls and commissaries. A rec hall has computers for use by the troops and all sorts of recreation and body building equipment.
This is no pipe dream, it is a reality. Live with it!
June 9th, 2006 at 6:58 pm#5 - It just frustrates the crap out of me that they deny there will be a permanent presence, and pull this stuff! It shouldn’t, but it does.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pmthis is what war opponents said from the beginning: That we are invading for oil,new bases to protect the Gulf/ Israel, and as a staging area for the invasion of other countries to which the chickenhawks said, NO. No, we are searching for WMD’s, I mean al Quaida ties to Iraq, I mean the murderous Saddam, the chemical user on the Kurds Saddam,I mean freedom, I mean to rebuild Iraq, I mean democracy, I mean the right to vote purple fingers and all, I mean as soon as their police can stand on their own etc. etc.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:15 pmWho was right?
#5 - It just frustrates the crap out of me that they deny there will be a permanent presence, and pull this stuff! It shouldn’t, but it does.
Comment by Zookeeper
yeah, kinda like “we don’t torture”, then they tried to block the torture ban
June 9th, 2006 at 7:23 pmIt’s the oil, man, it’s the oil.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:26 pmCorporations RULE!
yeah, kinda like “we don’t tortureâ€, then they tried to block the torture ban
Comment by Wayne — June 9, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
And “we’re not monitoring Americans’ phone conversations” and then block any and all attempts at oversight on the NSA program.
And George Bush, telling the public (and terrorists) about how we use “roving wiretaps” to eavesdrop on their calls, but bitching and screaming “national security” when a reporter does the same.
And on and on and on…
June 9th, 2006 at 7:37 pmWith so much invested in this whole war scheme,permanent bases included, what chance is there that a Presidential canidate will be ALLOWED to rise in either or any party to take us completely out of Iraq any time soon? I say none.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:41 pm[…] This is not good news: Reuters reports that conservatives are quietly backtracking from their earlier stance against permanent base construction in Iraq: Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday. […]
June 9th, 2006 at 7:55 pmSorry folks, but I’m probably one of the few here who thinks it might make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:57 pmDr.Sinker- Why do you think it is a good idea?
June 9th, 2006 at 8:01 pmWhenever I think of permanent bases in Iraq I think of our embassy in Iran (which is a museum now of displays of “why Iranians hate America”
June 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pm16 - Linda,
Thanks for asking - I should have qualified my statement. It only makes sense (of course) if Iraq becomes a stable country and an ally. Count me among the naive few that are still hopeful that’s a possible outcome.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:06 pmExcellent. The American conquest and terraforming of Central Asia proceeds apace, absent the hindering niceties of a principled government.
It’s just a damn shame the rest of the world is already wise to this shit. This Administration may be able to fool the American public, but the other nine-tenths of the planet is paying attention…and not quite ready to roll over for “Planet Bush.”
June 9th, 2006 at 8:07 pmIraqi bases=Oil Co security and muscle for Iraqi oil fields, at tax payer expense of course. You could make an argument for other purposes but this is the main purpose. You don’t leave the “prize” unprotected.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:11 pmJust when will military oaths include allegience to corporations? For honesty sake, they ought to.
DrSinker- I am an optimist too, however, I find it impossible to believe that we would ever be “wanted or welcomed to stay” there.
bio D. Just think if we spent all that money on alterative sources of energy…
June 9th, 2006 at 8:17 pmJune 9, 2006
3:27 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The famed secret society known as the Bilderberg Group is meeting today in Ottawa, and, if you haven’t been invited, welcome to the club.
It is one of the most exclusive conferences of global elites you will ever find – or not find.
Unlike some previous events in undisclosed locations, at least the place of this meeting is known – the Brookstreet Hotel in the Canadian capital city.
Not much else is known.
For instance, a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen was told by local police officials that security was being handled by Global Risk Holdings. However, upon reach Alan Bell, president of the company, the reporter was told: “Never heard of that conference. What is it? What do they do?”
Welcome to the mysterious world of secret societies.
Did someone say “secret societies”?
“Most people don’t realize they exist because their minds have been conditioned to reject any thought of such organizations,” explains Dr. Stanley Monteith, a medical doctor by training, who set out on a mission to research groups like the Bilderbergers 40 years ago.
The results of his startling research is a little book called “Brotherhood of Darkness,” in which he exposes the global agenda of organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
How important are events like this weekend’s Bilderberg conference?
It may not make any difference now, but in 2004, according to the New York Times, it was the standout “performance” of Sen. John Edwards at the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Italy that sealed the deal on his nomination as John Kerry’s vice presidential running mate. And you thought it was American public opinion that counted?
Though no one knows for sure who will be at this weekend’s gathering, among those attending the 2004 meeting in Italy, according to a list obtained by WND, were Edwards, Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.; Henry Kissinger; Richard Perle; Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates); David Rockefeller; Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Donald Graham, chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company; and even Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition.
(Here is the entire Bilderberg attendance list as published previously by WND.)
Since 1953, the Bilderberg group has convened government, business, academic and journalistic representatives from the U.S., Canada and Europe with the express purpose of exploring the future of the North Atlantic community.
According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings in the past, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.
“It’s officially described as a private gathering,” noted a BBC report in 2003, “but with a guest list including the heads of European and American corporations, political leaders and a few intellectuals, it’s one of the most influential organizations on the planet.”
And according to a BBC report on 2004’s conference in Stresa: “Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted. The shadowy aura extends further – the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.”
But, counter participants, the secrecy is not evidence of a grand conspiracy, but only an opportunity to speak frankly with other world leaders out of the limelight of press coverage and its inevitable repercussions.
“There’s absolutely nothing in it,” argues the UK’s Lord Denis Healey, one of the four founders of Bilderberg. “We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg,” he told the BBC. “It’s simply a place for discussion.”
June 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pmno one here is surprised are they? if this hasn’t always been the plan, then it was for killing people for fun.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:44 pmIt only makes sense (of course) if Iraq becomes a stable country and an ally. Count me among the naive few that are still hopeful that’s a possible outcome.
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @
Dude, the problem with hanging around the middle east is that we will be constantly invlolving ourselves in religious wars.
The middle east has been fighting over religion for over a thousand years and that is totally against the principles and foundation of the United States.
A religious war is going on in Iraq right now and our presence only fuels it. (exactly what Bushco intended) The Jews and Muslims will fight forever and I for one don’t want any part of it. In my opinion, they are all nuts and if they want fight over who’s God is better then let em. I’m not paying for it though.
I say let the religious freaks work it out among themselves, if they cant, oh well then they die trying.
June 9th, 2006 at 8:47 pmDude, the problem with hanging around the middle east is that we will be constantly invlolving ourselves in religious wars.
You have some points, but we’re not going to stop backing up Israel anytime soon. What we should be doing in the future is working to prevent these kind of wars from escalating. It’s not in our interests to have a middle east in which stability fluctuates wildly. Even if we completely remove ourselves from ME oild dependency (not realistic) the rest of the world isn’t going to. Things are far too global to play isolationist.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pmA letter to my Senator!
Dishonorable Senator Nelson,
I give up! If you would have been alive during the founding of this once great nation, and represented your constituents as you have to date, your signature would never have been allowed to soil the Declaration of Independence.
America does not want or need your “protection” from terrorists. The United States are now the terrorists, gold framing death pictures of Zaquari. That was so disgusting!
Do you have any faith in God? Are you a heathen as GW Bush? For God’s sake, do your duty! We Americans are dying!
I know, you hate me for being idealistic. I’m sorry, others have gone before me being idealistic. I hope to go with them rather than be so ashamed to see my freedom’s forfeited in pursuit of the Project for the New American Century.
If you haven’t read PNAC’s goals for US world domination, please take a moment to do so. Then maybe you’ll respond to my “rantings”.
While you are at it, please read “Mein Kampf”, as they are so similar. If you believe in PNAC, you also believe in Nazi Germany.
Congradulations Senator Nelson, welcome to 1984!
Please, become a Patriot of the United States. If not may God have mercy on your soul.
In His Service,
Perry Jordan
Colossians 3:23
June 9th, 2006 at 9:07 pm“It’s not in our interests to have a middle east in which stability fluctuates wildly.”
Therein lies the paradox of backing Israel.
Of course, if we have 16 bases in Iraq, Israel may finally become irrelevant. Maybe that’s the plan.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:30 pmDr. Sinker, I just don’t think the oil is worth it. We are a civilized nation and do not need oil nor do we need stability in the mid east. If the rest of the world wants to fight for it, then why aren’t they?
I don’t care what the rest of the World does, we are leaders, not followers.
America doesn’t exist to fund religious wars. Let the freaks fight, I’m not contributing my money to it, period.
I also agree with PeeJ, I’m not funding PNAC’s cause. Another religious freak cause.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:37 pmI don’t think we’ve had anything resembling a plan for awhile now Lackey, unfortunately. Time to throw the mo’fos out.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:38 pmPerhaps this is good news. It simply is another move toward exposing for all voters to understand that the country - not to mention the world - has been had by this administration and its supporters, both Republican and Democratic, in the Congress, courts, media, corporate community, churches, and synagogues. It’s just a wake-up call. It’s half-past ten and we were supposed to be at work at 8:00, world. You non-Americans can help us U.S. progressives out by assisting in a mercy killing. Just pull your money out of greenbacks and put it in Euros or some other currency. As much as I hate to say it, the sooner the better for everyone on this planet, even the ones who are going to suffer for it, including myself. Sometimes character demands pain and sacrifice. I see the rest of the world criticizing us, but I don’t see them putting their money where their mouth is. Go ahead. Stop supporting the dollar. Revise your portfolio. Whatever.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:38 pmWhat we should be doing in the future is working to prevent these kind of wars from escalating.
We have done nothing but escalate them. PNAC is a Christian organization. We are now participating in a religious war. We have become barbarians, savages, third world.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:41 pmDr. Sinker, I just don’t think the oil is worth it. We are a civilized nation and do not need oil nor do we need stability in the mid east. If the rest of the world wants to fight for it, then why aren’t they?
So your contention is that we could totally isolate ourselves from what happens in the ME? That even if some of the countries we trade with (China, India, etc) and our allies rely on the ME, we could somehow be totally immune to what happens there. I’m sorry but I totally disagree.
Look - I’m not defending the current admin AT ALL. But we simply can’t let those in the ME fight it out amongst themselves and expect it to not affect us or the global economy.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:47 pm#31 - PNAC is a CHISTIAN organization?!?!?!
Come on…….you must be out of your mind!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 9:54 pmDr. Sinker, Kids that don’t play fair go to time out. They are forced to disengage. We aren’t playing fair in the Middle East. Our ethics has the morality of an unsupervised ten year old. Actually, that’s unfair to many ten year olds…Yeah, so other parties aren’t playing fair either. so what? Is your ethical code a matter of reacting to the actions of others?
Isolationism is not only unrealistic, it’s impossible in our world, so stop thinking in the black-white terms of engaged or isolated. Isolationism isn’t going to happen because it CAN’T happen any longer, whether we want it to or not.
The U.S. is clearly messing in other people’s business in abusive ways, to put it mildly. The longer that it goes on the longer and harder will be the recoil. Wisdom would have us put our own house in order instead of self-righteously trying to get everyone else to play by our dysfunctional rules. (The current U.N. debate over Iran, for example.)
June 9th, 2006 at 10:09 pm#31 - PNAC is a CHISTIAN organization?!?!?!
Come on…….you must be out of your mind!!!
Comment by Joe Caribe — June 9, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
The GOP claims the same thing, they all claim to be christians, but spend a lot of time in the half of the book that does not mention the founder of their particular religion
June 9th, 2006 at 10:13 pmIt just frustrates the crap out of me that they deny there will be a permanent presence, and pull this stuff! It shouldn’t, but it does.
Comment by Zookeeper — June 9, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
They shouldn’t lie about it - especially while it is under construction… It’s like they think we are children to be coddled and denied the truth… And it is frustrating - I agree.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:18 pmRealityCheck,
Isolationism is not only unrealistic, it’s impossible in our world, so stop thinking in the black-white terms of engaged or isolated. Isolationism isn’t going to happen because it CAN’T happen any longer, whether we want it to or not.
I totally agree. Did I suggest otherwise?
The U.S. is clearly messing in other people’s business in abusive ways, to put it mildly. The longer that it goes on the longer and harder will be the recoil. Wisdom would have us put our own house in order instead of self-righteously trying to get everyone else to play by our dysfunctional rules. (The current U.N. debate over Iran, for example.)
Again - there’s little to current US foreign policy I agree with. But I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been,
June 9th, 2006 at 10:20 pmPNAC is a CHISTIAN organization?!?!?!
Come on…….you must be out of your mind!!!
You got me there, I’ll recant.
Christian hypocrites.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pmSounds llike fun, where do I buy tickets?
June 9th, 2006 at 10:24 pmWe have done nothing but escalate them. PNAC is a Christian organization. We are now participating in a religious war. We have become barbarians, savages, third world.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — June 9, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
It’s the American Empire… The whole world knows it, having stayed awake in their history classes in grade school, as they are aware of the power mongering tactics carried out by the Incan, Roman, Ottoman, and British Empires. It’s the American sheeple who have not one clue. Just as long as the cable is functional…
Oh, and America, which used to be the most educated country in the world, now ranks 15th in math skills.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:30 pmChristian Republican =Oxymoron
Ethical Republican=Oxymoron
Etihical Capitalism=Oxymoron
George Bush=MORON
You will notice ALL,of the above, end in M-O-R-O-N- MORONS,and that’s the GOP base.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:38 pmBut I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been,
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
By your analogy it was right for Saddam to invade Kuwait because in the end all he wanted was a base in Kuwait city….but since we already invaded we should be rewarded with a base there…because we can right?
June 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pmBut I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been,
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
Bush is hoping that democracy will spread throughout the Mid East once the other countries see how great freedom is. But for argument’s sake, suppose not everyone wants to play along, a situation which would threaten stability. As a worse-case scenario, if diplomacy fails and we are unable to convince other countries to accept democracy and freedom, do we then invade to effect regime change and sow the seeds ourselves?
Not trying to argue and I respect your views…just saying what if.
June 9th, 2006 at 10:50 pmDr. Sinker, let’s look at the implications of your logic:
“But I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been.”
Gee, I guess it makes sense then for the Israelis to spy on us as long as they get caught or for Islamic extremists to have cells (”bases”) in the U.S. I guess that by the same logic Russia or China could set up a base in say, Arlington, Virginia or Long Island, since it wouldn’t necessarily imply that they were messing in our business.
Bottom line: this type of thinking is extraordinarily colonialist and hubristic. It’s not worthy of progressives.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:31 pmDr. Sinker you just got sunk.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:34 pmJust One base in Iraq, please, please, please, I promise I will keep to myself and not bother anyone. Like I won’t dump my sewage, I wont dump my garbage, I wont make noise, I wont get in your way.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:36 pmWhat in the hell are we fighting for abroad? The Bush administration AGAIN subverts democracy and ignores the will of the people, all while quietly and secretly pushing their own agenda.
What a bunch of corrupt, inept warmongers. Not only do they not give a DAMN about this country and our interests, but they constantly subvert democracy.
I’ll be god-damned if I see America slip even further into fascism. It was once radical to say such things, but now, it seems pretty logical to say that fascist tendencies are sweeping over us and leaving their heavy marks on our democracy.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:38 pmBut I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been,
Comment by DrSinker — June 9, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
————————————————————-
DrSinker, with all due respect: Do you know why there has never been a coup d’etat in the US?
Because there isn’t an American Embassy!
June 9th, 2006 at 11:48 pmThis is pretty old school ways of operationg, I thought we were done with this kind of shit.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:55 pmOne of the things I’m liking about progressive blogs is that prerational perspectives don’t get equal air time they way they do on MSM. While anyone is welcome to post, at this type of site we either treat other people the way we would want to be treated or we get called on it. We make points that are thought out or we get called on it. That’s the way it should be across the board. The fact that it isn’t on the telly or in Congress means people in those domains are either functioning at a prerational level or they are invested in the status quo in an irrational way and are too scared or guilty to recognize it. In any case, they don’t belong in the national conversation. Now, if we only had fair and open elections in which ALL eligible voters got the chance to vote…Guess it’s too much to hope for in a “democracy,” huh?
June 10th, 2006 at 12:15 amI for one am shocked, nay feignously surprised. If the world had this information I am positive they could not be any less surprised than I.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:24 amGood. Guantanamo II. Another nice place to force feed “trialess” prisioners.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:28 am# 25
Comment by DrSinker
Isolationist…Yes, that is probably the best definition of US in military terms. Vietnam, Panama, Timor, Nicaragua, Somalia, Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, Puerto Rico…and the list goes on.
How do you like this: Cuba, Guatemala (you know, just getting even due to the United Fruit thing) and Iraq decide to put military bases all over US? mmmm…doesnt work the other way around for you, right?
June 10th, 2006 at 12:39 amWell according to FOX news not only is the American people being spied on by the NSA we are also being spied on by the Israelis…. what the hell is going on here?
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news
June 10th, 2006 at 1:01 amComment by DrSinker
My god!! (I am agnosthic, so that was just a rethorical expression) This is typical US self-centered and cynical attitude. You are already messing in other people´s business…pretty much since Ben Franklin and Bill Jefferson. “Near the extent we have been”…that would mean that maybe, we (the non US citizens, you know, the other 95.5% percent of global population) must not expect in the near future two other nukes above civilians, point blank killing of 3 y/o children or systematic torture from your freedom seekers. But, of course, that depends on US interests or economy, which is the same thing. In my humble opinion, you wont have to worry about terrorism or whatever other threat your government is inventing right now just to keep you consuming and in a state of permanent fear and suspicion. China will be soon the greatest superpower in the world…remember this comment after Beijing 2008.
June 10th, 2006 at 1:06 amBill Jefferson??? I meant Thomas…sorry. I guess I was thinking in Axl Rose.
June 10th, 2006 at 1:09 amBy ‘forcing’ ourselves on a country that clearly cannot wait to see the last of us, as soon as possible, we are reinforcing the valid reasoning that we are not to be trusted, that every statement we make, regarding our intentions, should be seen as being exactly the opposite of what was said. This is so disrespectful to a budding ‘democracy’, a ‘non-sovereign’ sovereign country, free to make it’s own decisions, as long as BushCo approves, that is. This just B*LLSH*T! But hey, they should be boasting about it, why aren’t they?
June 10th, 2006 at 2:01 amAlso, this explains the delay in the passage of this bill. I did wonder why they were dragging their heels on this one. Right. Got it. Jerks.
June 10th, 2006 at 2:04 amAlmost 400 billion dollars has been wasted so far on occupying Iraq to control its oil reserves, so in another year it will have cost a half trillion dollars, and after more years go by it would go into the trillions! Better to leave know and send the 400 billion bill to the Oil Cartels to pay up!
June 10th, 2006 at 2:53 amBetter to leave NOW {know is typo error} and send the 400 billion bill to the Oil Cartels to pay up!
June 10th, 2006 at 2:56 am41#-
June 10th, 2006 at 3:53 amIf only there was a party to bring a new progressive movement to this country, it almost seems hopeless……
When was the last time that Dr. Rice answered anything directly?
June 10th, 2006 at 7:09 amThis government has officially made me ashamed to be an American. Something I never thought would happen. After all, I was raised to believe I was fortunate to live in teh greatest counry in the world. Right off the boat, three generations prior, my ancestors fought and died for this country. Immigrants who believed in what democracy was supposed to represent - a good life for everyone. Not this greedy, war-mongering lunacy that is being waged in its name.
I’m all for the second Revolution. Let’s start in November by voting these hostile pigs out of office.
June 10th, 2006 at 9:44 amAnd people thought otherwise?
June 10th, 2006 at 10:29 amOf course permanent bases were the plan from the outset. It would have been of little benefit to destroy Iraq, control the oil wells, slowly rebuild it with US contractors, plant puppets in the Iraqi government and buiild a $580 million embassy and then stop short of permanent military bases to use as a launching pad for other incursions?
My momma always taught me from a very young age, that if you want to know what someone really thinks or believes or wants, forget about what they say…instead, watch what they do. When the words and the actions don’t match, you don’t believe the words…it’s that simple. In my experience, most people just aren’t good enough liars or good enough actors to keep the pretense up for long and eventually the truth comes out — even if they don’t realize it — because it’s easier to monitor and censor your speech than it is your behavior. That’s just one of the reasons why I’ve been deeply distrustful of this administration since day one — they have a distinct propensity for saying one thing and doing another (if not the exact opposite). Anyone who’s even remotely perceptive knew this was coming — you don’t sink millions of dollars into building military bases if you’re not planning to stay there long! I mean, come ON — this is not rocket science!
June 10th, 2006 at 10:59 amThis story reveals one of the big ugly truths that almost no elected officials will acknowldge. They (and I include those Senate Democrats who have supported this folly) never intended to leave. Liberation was a big lie, this is colonization. If you accept that truth than some of their “mistakes (disbanding the Iraqi army, etc.) begin to make sense, but in a different, and much more insidious way. Gary Hart has been sayng it over and over, ask them why they are building these big bases, ask them…Blogging on The Washington Note, and elsewhere: n enterprising reporter (remember those?) or a member of the Republican majority in Congess simply asks this question: “Mr. President, are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq, and, if so, why are we doing that if you are telling the truth about the U.S. withdrawing its troops?”
June 10th, 2006 at 11:07 amIts the reason they fired Garner, and brought in Bremer, i.e, to make a big mess, and have an excuse to stay, instead of turning it over to a new leadership, and leaving. But they underestimate the ferocity of what they would be met with in the insurency. They never intended to leave. They always intended to build permanent bases. Just because the US mainstream news media, and the faux leadership of the Democratic Party (I say this as a life-long partisan Democrat), refuse to inform the US electorate about the PNAC document, you don’t have to live in denial yourself. They wre aimed at conquest and domination (both here and in the oil fields of the ME and Central Asia), from the beginning, from before the seized power in 2000. Once you grok this, the moral and political imperative to adopt the Murtha Plan (or its equivalent) becomes even more clear, and more urgent. And it also becomes a moral and political imperative to refuse financial or ballot box support to any Democrat who continues to support this tragically foolish military adventure. The occupation of Iraq is worse than illegal, or immoral — it is stupid.
This story reveals one of the big ugly truths that almost no elected officials will acknowldge. They (and I include those Senate Democrats who have supported this folly) never intended to leave. Liberation was a big lie, this is colonization. If you accept that truth than some of their “mistakes (disbanding the Iraqi army, etc.) begin to make sense, but in a different, and much more insidious way. Gary Hart has been sayng it over and over, ask them why they are building these big bases, ask them…Blogging on The Washington Note, and elsewhere: n enterprising reporter (remember those?) or a member of the Republican majority in Congess simply asks this question: “Mr. President, are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq, and, if so, why are we doing that if you are telling the truth about the U.S. withdrawing its troops?”
June 10th, 2006 at 11:08 amIts the reason they fired Garner, and brought in Bremer, i.e, to make a big mess, and have an excuse to stay, instead of turning it over to a new leadership, and leaving. But they underestimate the ferocity of what they would be met with in the insurency. They never intended to leave. They always intended to build permanent bases. Just because the US mainstream news media, and the faux leadership of the Democratic Party (I say this as a life-long partisan Democrat), refuse to inform the US electorate about the PNAC document, you don’t have to live in denial yourself. They wre aimed at conquest and domination (both here and in the oil fields of the ME and Central Asia), from the beginning, from before the seized power in 2000. Once you grok this, the moral and political imperative to adopt the Murtha Plan (or its equivalent) becomes even more clear, and more urgent. And it also becomes a moral and political imperative to refuse financial or ballot box support to any Democrat who continues to support this tragically foolish military adventure. The occupation of Iraq is worse than illegal, or immoral — it is stupid. The motto should not be “Support the Troops,” it should be “Rescue the Troops.”
The motto should not be “Support the Troops,†it should be “Rescue the Troops.â€
Comment by Richard Power
Well said, and so true, sadly enough.
June 10th, 2006 at 11:20 amAgain - there’s little to current US foreign policy I agree with. But I still contend it may make sense for us to maintain a base in Iraq. It doesn’t necessarily imply we’ll be messing in other people’s business anywhere near the extent we have been. — DrSinker
**************
With all due respect, DrSinker — after all the shenanigans that we’ve seen the Bush administration get up to so far, how can you POSSIBLY still be that naive?!?! For the love of all that’s sacred, man…haven’t you ever heard the expression “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”? History and human nature has shown time and time again that once you’ve allowed someone to get their foot in the door — whether by fair means or foul — they’ve already won more than half of the battle and it becomes monumentally more difficult to prevent their entry, let alone convince them to go away…
June 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pmWell like it or not the bases are there forever. They’re hugh, 60 square miles with traffic signals, Pizza Hut, Burger King, Chevron stations, houses, schools etc… We the American People have no say so. The reason Isreal is spying on the Us is because it’s illegal for the U.S. to spy on Us, of course the spying is shared with our intelligence. Now our government does it illegally anyway.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pmWhy does the rest of the media not point out that this amounts to the administration showing its hand?
We never intended to leave Iraq, and those who say we will stay until the end of the GWOT, mean we will stay until all the oil is gone, or until there is a viable alternative that does not require our presence.
Power is destructive when in the hands of US/Israeli/oil interests.
Israel is the greatest terrorist nation, followed by the US.
That’s my guess.
June 10th, 2006 at 1:29 pmThree suicides in Guantanamo
Thats it I have Had it up to here, stop this war on terror NOW
June 10th, 2006 at 4:11 pmGeorge W. Bush — in his first public comment on the alleged massacre of 24 civilians by U.S. Marines in Haditha, Iraq, last November — said: “If, in fact, these allegations are true, the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that … those who violated the law — if indeed they did — will be punished.â€
Now that President Bush has resolved publicly that those who committed war crimes will be punished, the subject of U.S. war crimes may begin to move closer to its deserved prominent place in the American public discourse. If this happens, more Americans are likely to realize that the man who spoke of punishing war criminals has himself violated the law and should be accordingly punished.
In fact, according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which the U.S. had a major role in drafting, those who initiate a war of aggression quite literally bear individual criminal responsibility, not only for waging unprovoked war, but for the war crimes which inevitably flow from aggression.
In 1946, the chief American prosecutor of the first Nuremberg trial, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, took this principle seriously enough to help secure the conviction of 17 of the most prominent surviving German leaders for initiating a war of aggression. Eleven were sentenced to death. Three received life sentences and three received lesser sentences.
Reading the transcript of the first Nuremberg trial, we see that all who committed war crimes, from the foot soldiers to the highest leaders, were to be held responsible for their crimes. We also see, however, that the leaders who initiated the aggression were assigned primary criminal responsibility by the prosecutors and by the Tribunal, since none of the subsequent crimes would have been committed had the aggression not occurred. This principle was absolutely central to the Nuremberg Charter and Trials.
Moreover, we see that the intent of the authors of the Charter was not to limit the principles involved in this body of law to prosecution of Germans in 1946 but rather to set a precedent for all times and for all countries, including the United States.
Article 6 of the Charter states: “The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; …Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.â€
And from Article 7: “The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.â€
On Aug. 12, 1945, three months before the trial began, Justice Jackson made the intent of the American prosecution and of the law clear in a statement on the War Trials Agreement:
“If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner’s dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure. …We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.â€
Bearing in mind the relationship of the Marines now awaiting trial for the Haditha massacre to their Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates, Justice Jackson’s words in his Nov. 21, 1945, opening statement concerning the German leaders then on trial go to the heart of the matter:
“These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war. …We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists, of the Nazi movement. Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?â€
If we bear in mind that the U.S. aggression in Iraq was a violation not only of the Nuremberg Charter but of the U.N. Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51) and if we remember the several shifting justifications for the aggression presented by the Bush administration, Justice Jackson’s later words that day resonate today for us and for President Bush:
“The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes. … Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions.â€
And speaking to the concept of individual responsibility for war criminals at the highest levels, then and in the future, Justice Jackson said:
“The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors.â€
In his closing statement for the American prosecution, July 26, 1946, Justice Jackson hammered again at the relationship between the criminals at the bottom and the criminals at the top:
“The gist of the offense is participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are rules which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like these defendants, who never get blood on their own hands but who lay plans that result in the shedding of blood. All over Germany today, in every zone of occupation, little men who carried out these criminal policies under orders are being convicted and punished. It would present a vast and unforgivable caricature of justice if the men who planned these policies and directed these little men should escape all penalty.â€
On Oct. 1, 1946, judgment was delivered by the Nuremberg Tribunal. From the judgment:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. …Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.â€
The simple truth is that had President Bush not ordered an illegal war of aggression, the 24 civilians in Haditha, along with countless thousands of other Iraqis and Americans, would be alive today.
Justice Jackson’s last sentence in his closing statement, July 26, 1946, concerns the German leaders on trial at the time, but speaks to contemporary American leaders as well: “If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.â€
June 10th, 2006 at 4:21 pmTobey Tall, you lay out a good argument, with which I do not disagree. I don’t think that we will see our leaders held accountable for their crimes, much less in a trial; they certainly have deserved full punishment under the law, but I am not hopeful that we will ever see justice.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:36 pmThe good die young - the evil go on forever. Our young soldiers die, innocent civilians die, while our evil leaders proceed with impunity.
#75 Tobey Tall
June 10th, 2006 at 7:49 pmI neglected to thank you for pasting all of that information together. I just read it again, aloud, to my husband and I am on the brink of tears.
My beloved America has been taken over by lawless tyrants, and their crimes have been clearly noted, and warned against, in the statements heard at Nuremberg.
I have to believe that the Iraqi people do not want us in their country.
Bubble boy claims he’s spreading democracy and blah, blah, blah. From where I’m looking the Iraqi’s and other muslim nations are content with the way things are.
For example: you know how the women cover their entire bodies in clothing? Well guess what…when they move to the U.S. they do not have to cover their bodies, they are free to wear what they want.
They choose to cover their bodies here in America. They are not being forced to be slaves to men, thats what they want to be.
June 10th, 2006 at 8:10 pm[…] Via Reddit, we find that Republicans in congress quietly killed a provision that would have banned the building of permanent military bases in Iraq. The measure, an amendment to an emergency bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was passed unanimously by both houses of congress last month. That’s because the media was focused on the bill last month. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 3:34 amThey choose to cover their bodies here in America. They are not being forced to be slaves to men, thats what they want to be.
Comment by Stupid Republicans — June 10, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Some do and some don’t. Their dress Is a result of their culture and upbringing. Just like your. You wouldn’t start wearing a skirt if you didn’t feel comfortable wearing one. Or stop wearing a shirt in public. Because you wearing pants and a shirt in public is a part of the culture you were raised with.
For me a big issue is that the people weren’t rebelling or fleeing in a mass exodus. That’s a sign that they weren’t upset enough with their conditions to be doing anything about it.
And, frankly, without an iron fisted leader, look at what they have resorted to - civil war. They can’t stop killing themselves now that they have freedom…
June 11th, 2006 at 11:13 am[…] It’s not an imperial over-reach of an occupation if we aren’t going to have permanent bases there. That’s out the window… Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm[…] Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress stripped a provision from the supplemental spending bill that would have ruled out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 10:15 pm