Perino On Permanent Bases: It Depends On How You Define ‘Permanent’
Perino On Permanent Bases: It Depends On How You Define ‘Permanent’
In recent weeks, the administration has gone on a PR offensive claiming they do not seek permanent bases in Iraq, even removing a “security guarantee” from its “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship.”
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in the Washington Post, “nothing will authorize permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we nor Iraqis want).”
But this rhetoric has not been implemented into action. In January, President Bush issued a signing statement allowing him to disregard a provision in the Defense Authorization Act banning permanent bases in Iraq. This week, the administration agreed to a “pause” in the rate of withdrawal.
Today, White House Press Secretary revealed how misleading the administration’s rhetoric on permanent bases is, arguing the White House does not view any U.S. military installations overseas as being “permanent”:
“The United States, where we are, where we have bases, we are there at the invitation of those countries. I’m not aware of any place in the world — where we have a base — that they are asking us to leave. And if they did, we would probably leave,” said spokeswoman Dana Perino. [...]
Top aides to US President George W. Bush have countered that the strife-torn country’s government could ask US forces to leave at any time, meaning that bases are not technically “permanent.”
The U.S. has roughly 700 overseas bases in about 130 countries, many for decades. For example, U.S. forces have been stationed in Japan, Germany, and South Korea since post-World War II.
The White House’s rhetoric echoes that of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) who frequently lists the presence of U.S. bases abroad to bolster his case for a 10,000 year occupation of Iraq.
Perino’s comments suggest that the White House’s public statements that it opposes “permanent bases” in Iraq is just a game of semantics.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Dana Perino got a little too close to the PERMANENT market at school, she hasn’t been the same since.”
See, thats what permanent means Dana.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:48 pm“The United States, where we are, where we have bases, we are there at the invitation of those countries. I’m not aware of any place in the world — where we have a base — that they are asking us to leave. And if they did, we would probably leave,†said spokeswoman Dana Perino. […]
Well this goes to show you how out of touch Barbie Perino is. A vast majority of the people in Iraq and the Iraqi Parliament want us to leave. They have not issued a formal declaration telling us to leave, probably because they know that they would be ignored. If this administration really did want to do what was right for the Iraqi people, they would listen to what they want and respect what they want. But, since we are occupying the country and think that we are “boss of the show”, our government is not paying the least amount of attention to what the people in Iraq want.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pmShe has an extremely valid point. In approximately six billion years the Suni is going to deplete its hydrogen supply and will turn into a red giant, swallowing up Mercury, Venus, Earth, and possibly Mars. Unless these bases are somehow loaded onto an Iraqi arcology and launched into interstellar space, they can hardly be deemed “permanent.”
February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pmThe chymp can have all the permanent bases HE wants.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pmUntil Jan 21 09.
Perino On Permanent Bases: It Depends On How You Define ‘Permanent’
Aren’t these the people who dined out for so long on Clinton’s “depends on what ‘is’ means”?
February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pmI meant Sun, not Sunni.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pmPerino’s comments suggest that the White House’s public statements that it opposes “permanent bases†in Iraq is just a game of semantics.
This administration doesn’t do truth, they only do lies and semantics.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pmHow to define “permanent”:
“Are you pouring concrete?” :)
February 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pmi guess republicans have a hard time with the english language:
per·ma·nent (pûr’mÉ™-nÉ™nt) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Lasting or remaining without essential change
February 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent base in iraq.
the u.s. started construction on those bases and the massive u.s. embassy complex very shortly after the iraq invasion… it has been our intention all along to make iraq a u.s. outpost, using the infrastructure of that country as our private resource – oil, banking, currency, geography, and the most recent cash crop, opium poppies, cultivated with the help of willing afghans… all we get is lies, lies, and more lies… now that the full extent of the lies are becoming impossible to ignore, they’re trying to backpedal… sorry, bob and condi… we ain’t buyin’ your shit…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
February 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm“If this administration really did want to do what was right for the Iraqi people”
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 13, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
That has never and will never be a concern of this administration.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pmNews flash for Dana. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives ONE definition, and it is as clear as crystal:
Main Entry:
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French parmanant, from Latin permanent-, permanens, present participle of permanēre to endure, from per- throughout + manēre to remain — more at per-, mansion
Date:
15th century
: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change : stable
synonyms see lasting
— per·ma·nent·ly adverb
— per·ma·nent·ness noun
There is only one thing ‘permanent’ means – forever. One meaning. No alternative. No question. No debate.
Unless, of course, the administration is really talking about a woman’s hair style…
February 13th, 2008 at 4:57 pmThis is EXACTLY how France got stuck with EuroDisney!
February 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm“We promise, it won’t be PERMANENT.”
When it comes right down to it, just about any term can be made flexible by this administration — not just the term “permanent”.
Examples:
“Mission” and “accomplished” (as in “mission accomplished”)
“Enemy” (several uses)
“Al Qaeda” (has come to mean any Middle Eastern person we bomb or shoot)
“Security” (what you’re getting when they listen in on your phone conversations)
“Working” (as in “the surge is working”)
“Threat” (anyone we don’t like, Israel doesn’t like, or Saudi Arabia doesn’t like)
“Support” (as in “support the troops”)
And this is just a partial list of terms redefined by this White House regarding the Iraq situation. There are other lists for domestic disasters.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pmIs it just me or does every time Dana Perino opens her mouth these days, to expound on just about any subject, she resembles more and more the ditzy Chrissy Snow character from the sitcom Three’s Company? — which reminds me of an old joke:
George Bush arrived in the oval office one morning and found Dana Perino painting the walls. Dana was wearing a new fur coat and a nice denim jacket.
Thinking this was a little strange, George asked Dana why she was wearing them rather than old clothes or an overall.
Dana showed him the instructions on the tin,
“For best results, put on two coats”.
(And George thought it made perfect sense of course).
Just saying . . .
February 13th, 2008 at 5:01 pmYah, yah and waterboarding is an ‘alternative interrogation program’ technique.
There’s that Office of Semantics at play again. Or should I say, The Ministry of Truth?
February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pmGuantanamo is not a permanent base, you know.
The US is just renting the place from Cuba for 99 years.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pmComment by missmolly — February 13, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
My favorites are the ones whose double meaning is intentional…
“Sanction” The Bush Adminstration sanctioned Saddam Hussein’s activities.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pmIf you’ve got a minute check out this article (got the link from Buzzflash):
‘How the spooks took over the news
In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html
February 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pmNotice it’s always “working”, the same way ants are always “working“.
I’ve noticed no one in the WH ever says “The Surge is succeeding.”
February 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pmI guess mortar fire and suicide bombs don’t count as “asking”.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pmThe Iraqis have already asked us to leave.
Yeah. Like we’re gonna any old time soon. *eyeroll*
February 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pmUh oh, she just let slip what a great asset Uncle Fidel has been in the War on Terror. I missed the word that he invited us to stay at Gitmo.
Dana, if you insist on continuing to embarrass yourself like this I am sure the newshooker job at Fox pays better. You won’t have to deal with any pesky reporters asking questions either because we all know Fox doesn’t have any journalists on the payroll.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:07 pmWell, “permanent†bases would be like for infinity, as end till the end of time, is what I guess they are using as logic.
Just another way around the truth, as usual.
Buck Fush
February 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm“It Depends On How You Define ‘Permanent’”
or
What the definition of is, “is”
February 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pmboy, what a picture… what a story it is telling…
duby, with that perturbed, petulant pissant look on his face,
and perino looking on approvingly, even adoringly…
they just don’t care.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pmDana Parsino
February 13th, 2008 at 5:21 pmWitness the wonderous rhetoric of John McCain put to song :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
John McCain’s inspirational video. Had to share it with you guys. Enjoy it ‘my friends!’
February 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pmTP’s unusually quiet about the passage of three new and potentially very significant laws in Iraq today…I guess political progress isn’t a big deal anyway.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pmIf the buildings are designed to last only 500 years, then by definition they are NOT permanent.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:27 pmIf we do not have bases in Iraq, where are we going to land our planes and dock our boats? Comment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Your backyard will do nicely.. The more presence we have, the worse off we are in the ME.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:27 pmThe Middle East is a powder keg right now. Anything can happen considering whats been going on the last thirty years.
Comment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
You act as if this “powder keg” has absolutely nothing to do with U.S. interventionist policy in the Middle East over the last thirty years.
Scratch that – make it sixty years.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pmOT, but is Dana in her jammies?
February 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pmIf we do not have bases in Iraq, where are we going to land our planes and dock our boats?
Comment by Southern Man
S&M, like all the other fool tool trolls, seems to think that we have the right to land our planes and dock our boats in Iraq. He and his ilk miss the point that it is NOT OUR COUNTRY. It does not now nor has it ever belonged to us. Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq and they have the right to determine what they will do with their country.
This is why it makes me crazy every time I hear a presidential candidate (even the Democrats) talk about leaving troops in Iraq to defend our assets in Iraq. WE HAVE NO ASSETS IN IRAQ. They make it sound like the oil under Iraq’s soil somehow belongs to us. I know that is what they want to believe, but it isn’t true.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pmNo one has a permanent address. Someday, you will die and the address will no longer be yours. The United States is not a permanent country since the world will some day end. Thus, the word permanent has no practical meaning in our vocabulary, including for a hair treatment.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:34 pmIf we do not have bases in Iraq, where are we going to land our planes and dock our boats? The Middle East is a powder keg right now. Anything can happen considering whats been going on the last thirty years. It make sense to rely on these bases in Iraq.
Comment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Diego Garcia? Dubai? Somewhere that’s not just convenient to the US but where we’re welcome?
One of the reasons the Middle East is a powder keg is because the US insists on trying to control what happens there, and does a terrible job of it.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pmComment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
How about we land them and dock them here in the United States? I have a feeling their crews AND most Iraqi’s would prefer it that way…
February 13th, 2008 at 5:40 pmI wonder how many showers a day does Perina have to take to keep the stench of failure off of her. All those lies, all that adoration for the Chimpster, all the death and destruction have got to create one heck of a smell. Can you smell it? Can’t you smell that smell?
February 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pmRULE OF THUMB WHEN LISTENING TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION OR ALIGNED NEO-CONSERVATIVES’ ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Whatever they say, the exact opposite is true.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pmTP’s unusually quiet about the passage of three new and potentially very significant laws in Iraq today…I guess political progress isn’t a big deal anyway.
Comment by thirdparty
Tool troll thirdparty thinks that passing a budget a law to set elections and a law parceling out regions of Iraq are all “potentially very significant”. Sheesh. But I guess they have to grasp at straws. They will see the Parliament even meeting as “significant progress”. The tool troll also failed to mention that shortly after passing these “significant” laws, they went on another month long vacation.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:42 pmTP’s unusually quiet about the passage of three new and potentially very significant laws in Iraq today…I guess political progress isn’t a big deal anyway.
Comment by thirdparty
Didn’t we go through all the purple finger stuff, anyway? It was on the cover of Time magazine, I think. Just how many “elections” do we need to cheer on – only the ones the Bushies want us to cheer for, huh?
Sheese…Bush can’t even get a simple election right – except the ones he stole from us.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:47 pmsouthern pussy; by your logic, Red China has every right to land their air force planes, navy ships, and hundreds of thousands of their troops every place they want in the USA.
IRAQ IS NOT OUR COUNTRY!!!
PERIOD!!!!
WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!
February 13th, 2008 at 5:57 pmS&M-
February 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pmSudan and Kenya are also powder kegs right now, what say we invade Uganda or Ethiopia and set up bases there? Of course, we’ll also have to invade Eritrea to have sea access, and while we’re at it we might as well invade Egypt- ’cause the Pyramids are pretty cool and they have mummies and stuff… Ooh, you know where I’ve always wanted to invade? Monte Carlo! That place is a powder keg of FUN! I’m starting a bucket list of places to invade before I die…
I’m not aware of any place in the world — where we have a base — that they are asking us to leave. And if they did, we would probably leave,†said spokeswoman Dana Perino. […]
“Probably.” Nice selection of the word, Dana.
Top aides to US President George W. Bush have countered that the strife-torn country’s government could ask US forces to leave at any time, meaning that bases are not technically “permanent.â€
We are talking about Iraq here, right? Do the aides suggest that we would leave “at any time” even if the generals on the ground said “we can’t leave now”???
February 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pmI was going to write some pithy comment as I was laughing, then the laughter turned into tears.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pmTHIS is the leadership (Bush et. al) of a once great country; a country permitted to implode by incompetency, deceit, lies, traitorous relationships with defense contractors, and a leadership that demonstrates it’s moral decay as it turns it’s eyes away from the human devastation of war.
We are witnessing the long good-bye to America.
duby, with that perturbed, petulant pissant look on his face,
and perino looking on approvingly, even adoringly…
Comment by katy — February 13, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Kinda like Adolph and Eva?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pmHere we go again.
Iraq’s government can, at any time, ask us to leave and we’ll leave.
But in America if a Democrat or anyone else against this war ask Bush to bring the troops home, he says “no.”
February 13th, 2008 at 6:03 pmCaption:
February 13th, 2008 at 6:04 pmDana worships as Bush swallows whole frog…
What the definition of is, “isâ€
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — February 13, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Of course, when talking about todays’ GOOP, the word ‘depends’ takes on a whole new meaning!
February 13th, 2008 at 6:05 pmBad Eye; how much do you want to bet that if the Iraqi parliament, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi prime minister all ask us to leave, Bush/Cheney will tell them PHUCK YOU?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pmI worked for a company for 20 years.
That turned out not to be permanent.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pmBad Eye; how much do you want to bet that if the Iraqi parliament, the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi prime minister all ask us to leave, Bush/Cheney will tell them PHUCK YOU?
Comment by Uncle Ho — February 13, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Oh, I’d bet good money on it.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pmComment by Bad Eye — February 13, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
So would Halliburton and KBR-
February 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pmFrom the archives (Year: 2006; notice the tidbit about Iraqi forces taking over security in the country in 18 months):
Bush Claimed Iraqis Oppose Timetable the Day After Iraq’s VP Personally Asked Him for One
After Bush returned from his trip to Iraq this week, President Bush attacked those calling for a timetable for withdrawal. He said Iraqis had “concerns†that a timetable would disrupt their strategy to create a secure and democratic Iraq:
Today, the AP reports that Iraq’s Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi, personally asked President Bush to set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces the day before. Iraq’s President, Jalal Talabani, said he supported the request:
Separately, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that Iraqi security forces should be completely in charge of the nation’s security in 18 months.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/16/vp-requests-timetable/
February 13th, 2008 at 6:15 pmAlso from the archives (sorry, don’t have a link but these should be easy to find):
UPDATE: From the Washington Post, 5/15/04:
Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.
… “If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,†Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.â€
Filed under: Iraq
Posted by Judd November 22, 2005 10:16 am
…
Bush Said He Would Withdraw U.S. Forces If The Iraqis Asked
On Monday, Iraqi political leaders called on the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal. In January, President Bush said that if asked by the Iraqis, U.S. forces would leave the country:
Bush has now been asked to withdraw. Will he stick to his word?
(Thanks to reader chill for the tip.)
Filed under:
February 13th, 2008 at 6:20 pmPosted by Judd November 22, 2005 11:27
I’m so glad that this administration has restored “honor and integrity” to the White House!
February 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pmAnd, finally…
Sen. Mitch McConnell (article dated May 14, 2007):
“I don’t know what their problem is but this country has made an enormous investment in giving the Iraqis a chance to have a normal government after all of these years of Saddam Hussein and his atrocities,” he said.
Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq’s parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.
“I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we’ll be glad to comply with their request,” he said.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/14/75642.shtml
February 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pmSo would Halliburton and KBR-
Comment by belac — February 13, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
But of course.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pmIf the buildings are designed to last only 500 years, then by definition they are NOT permanent.
Comment by MapleStreet — February 13, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
hell, we’d be lucky if they last 50 hears, the way bushco builds them…
February 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pmdid they last 5?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pmThe thing that McCain and other permanent base supporters seem to keep forgetting is that we’re not an army of occupation in any of those other countries (at least not anymore). Also, none of the other countries are in a state of civil war.
It seems pretty obvious that one of the objectives of this misbegotten war and occupation has always been establishing a permanent military presence in the middle east on top of some oil. Whitehouse denials of that are simply more lies and misinformation.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pmDidn’t take southern pussy to slither away, did it?
February 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm“Leaders of other middle Eastern countries want to help us,”
could be true, especially with some incentives like promising to sell them weapons perhaps?
“but because of Bush and some of his policies, they are reluctant to help because of the negative image they will receive”
also could be true considering how Bush has managed to alienate the planet,
“If Barack becomes president, wouldn’t you want him to have all the tools necessary to help the millitary?”
I’m hoping that Barack’s idea of helping the military is to get them out of “the power keg” that is the Middle East and then he implements policies that allow world leaders to openly work with him in addressing today’s challenges. That would be good.
Comment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pmNow, we all know Dana perino is blonde and all BUT, someone ought to inform this mouthpiece “permanent” means “not temporary”.
Better watch out, Dana, we all know what happened to Tony Snow from lying so much…he started rotting from the inside out.
Now, on to the serious stuff. We all know whatever bases they build in Iraq are intended to be permanent, it’s the only way to keep this bogus “war on terra” afloat. For those of you who remember, Bin Laden got his turban in a knot over permanent U.S. military bases being built in Saudi Arabia and ::::Boom::::, New York City’s in flames. What the coward of crawford is doing is creating the means to perpetuate the fear mongering and the “war on terra” when the iraqi’s get pissed off over being occupied and react.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:47 pmWonder if she knows that she is going to jail?!
February 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pmBozo, good point, seeing as how many of Shiia’s holiest spots are in Iraq… How about a coupla dozen thousand Bin Ladens???
February 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pmWhat the coward of crawford is doing is creating the means to perpetuate the fear mongering and the “war on terra†when the iraqi’s get pissed off over being occupied and react.
Comment by Bozo The Neoclown — February 13, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
So if a Shiite terrorist mastermind devises a way to attack the US territory, then the War on Terra will continue (probably by invading Venezuela… to spread Freedom or something).
February 13th, 2008 at 7:11 pm“So if a Shiite terrorist ” well, luis, if a shiite “terrarist” attacks the U.S. it would be the coward of crawford’s wet dream, that way he could invade Iran afterall, Iran is a Shiite nation
February 13th, 2008 at 7:15 pmOur pilots would like their missions to last 20+ hrs.?
Comment by Tracy2 — February 13, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Our pilots would like to take a break from their missions and see their families… The Iraqi’s would like a break from the pilot’s missions, too… see what’s left of their families…
February 13th, 2008 at 7:31 pm“So if a Shiite terrorist †well, luis, if a shiite “terrarist†attacks the U.S. it would be the coward of crawford’s wet dream, that way he could invade Iran afterall, Iran is a Shiite nation
Comment by Bozo The Neoclown — February 13, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Yeah, but since when has logic been a part of the C of C’s reasons for invading other countries?
February 13th, 2008 at 7:33 pm#70
Comment by Tracy2 — February 13, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
I guess my other thought would be, if you seriously feel the need to project force in the Middle East how about the 11 carrier strike groups that Ronnie insisted we needed? Isn’t this exactly their mission?
February 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pmYour comments leave me no choice but to suspect you have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you even read anything other than the first paragraph of the news accounts of this? Everything I read suggests it IS a big accomplishment. Only if our Congress could agree on four substantive laws (3 today) so far this year!
February 13th, 2008 at 7:42 pm‘depends’ takes on a whole new meaning!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 13, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
You got that right!
McInsane’s wearin’ em & Bush changes Cheney’s… ;)
February 13th, 2008 at 7:48 pmChimpy’s final achievement (hopefully): outclintoning Clinton.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:41 pmFrom Democracy Now, October 23, 2007
Ecuador Refuses to Renew Lease for U.S. Military Base
Meanwhile a dispute continues over a U.S. military base in Ecuador. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has refused to renew Washington’s lease on the Manta air base. In an interview with Reuters Correa said he would renew the lease on one condition—the United States allow Ecuador to build a military base in Miami. Correa said: “If there’s no problem having foreign soldiers on a country’s soil, surely they’ll let us have an Ecuadorian base in the United States.†It is estimated that United States has over 700 military bases in foreign countries.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:54 pmThe intention of the US was never disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD, which he had at one stage because the US has given them to him. O.i.l., which stands for Oil, Israel and logistics… WAR CRIMINALS!
February 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pmDana Perino = Moron
Bush Administration = Zero Credibility
Bush and Cheney = Lying Criminals
Investigate,
February 13th, 2008 at 9:39 pmIf necessary – Indict
If guilty – Incarcerate
Well, I didn’t read the article but I would guess it is true about what you mean by permanent. If it means it is a permanent reminder of our subjugation of Iraq…not a fan. If it becomes just another base, I am ok with it (if there is a true peace).
February 13th, 2008 at 10:32 pmComment by Southern Man — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
By that logic, China and Russia should have permanent bases in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia—otherwise, where are they gonna land their planes? Where are they gonna dock their boats?
Going by Bush’s statement—he thinks Cuba wants us to have a huge chuck of their country for the last 100 years! Did he forget about Guantanamo?
February 13th, 2008 at 11:47 pmWe don’t need bases, this empire is sickness. The desire for empire among the elite is a real sickness that needs to end. People have to regain power to control this country quick before another war bankrupts and ends this nation as we know it.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:12 amPerino clarified her position that the bases are not technically permanent, “In order to ensure that the bases are not permanent, we have issued no-bid contracts to the most corrupt, inept construction contractors available. The bases will be virtually uninhabitable, and they will begin to disintegrate before they are even completed.”
February 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am‘Permanent?…oh do you like my hair?’….No stupid, ‘permanent’ means NOT your job.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:53 am#85
Comment by Tracy2 — February 14, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
and yet that seems to be exactly what they are doing… odd.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021107B.shtml
February 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pmhttp://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/164/documentid/1868/history/3,2360,656,164,1868
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/11/the-hidden-war-with-iran/
Is it just me or does every time Dana Perino opens her mouth these days, to expound on just about any subject, she resembles more and more the ditzy Chrissy Snow character from the sitcom Three’s Company? — which reminds me of an old joke:
George Bush arrived in the oval acer as07a72 battery,acer as07a41 battery office one morning and found Dana Perino painting the walls. Dana was wearing a new fur coat and a nice denim jacket.
Thinking this was a little strange, George asked Dana why she was wearing them rather than old clothes or an overall.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:03 am