No Permanent Bases In Iraq!
H.R. 2929 Proposes to Give the Lie to Bush's Pretense of Not Intending to Stay in Iraq.
Co-Sponsors Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, David Price and Lynn Woolsey
H.R. 2929 would bar the use of any funds in the new spending bill to establish permanent bases. This bill takes Bush and his top administration officials at their word when they have said the U.S. military has no interest in permanent bases, the prospect of which is the chief cause of anti-American unrest in Iraq.
Leaders of the Republican majority also chose to avoid a debate and recorded vote on Lee's proposal in 2006 because they didn't want to go on record endorsing a permanent military presence in Iraq when polls show Americans oppose the occupation.
As Representative Lee said on the House floor,
Co-Sponsors Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, David Price and Lynn Woolsey
H.R. 2929 would bar the use of any funds in the new spending bill to establish permanent bases. This bill takes Bush and his top administration officials at their word when they have said the U.S. military has no interest in permanent bases, the prospect of which is the chief cause of anti-American unrest in Iraq.
Leaders of the Republican majority also chose to avoid a debate and recorded vote on Lee's proposal in 2006 because they didn't want to go on record endorsing a permanent military presence in Iraq when polls show Americans oppose the occupation.
As Representative Lee said on the House floor,
In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops' backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq.Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for the anti-war group MoveOn.org:
Our goal is the total political collapse of support for Bush's war. And this gives us an even better opportunity to achieve that.Deny the Bush Administration's shoot-first policy the spoils of its invasion and occupation of Iraq by supporting this bill.
This bill is currently being debated on the Floor of the House of Representatives.110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2929IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJune 28, 2007
Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, and Ms. WATERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILL
To limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
- On May 30, 2007, Tony Snow, the President's press secretary, said that President Bush envisions a United States military presence in Iraq `as we have in South Korea', where American troops have been stationed for more than 50 years.
- On June 1, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates elaborated on the President's idea of a `long and enduring presence' in Iraq, of which the `Korea model' is one example.
- These statements run counter to previous statements issued by the President and other administration officials.
- On April 13, 2004, the President said, `As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.'.
- On February 6, 2007, Secretary Robert Gates stated in testimony before Congress, `we certainly have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq.'.
- On February 16, 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in testimony before Congress, `We have no desire to have our forces permanently in that country. We have no plans or discussions underway to have permanent bases in that country.'.
- On March 24, 2006, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Kahilzad stated that the United States has `no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'.
- On October 25, 2006, the President stated, `Any decisions on permanency in Iraq will be made by the Iraqi government.', in response to a question whether the United States wanted to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq.
- On February 6, 2007, Secretary Gates said, `We will make that decision, sir' in response to the question: `Is that still our policy, that we're going to be there [Iraq] as long as the [Iraqi] government asks us to be there? ... Is our presence left up to the Iraqis or do we make the decision?'.
- The perception that the United States intends to permanently occupy Iraq aids insurgent groups in recruiting supporters and fuels violent activity.
- A clear statement that the United States does not seek a long-term or permanent presence in Iraq would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States fully supports the efforts of the Iraqi people to exercise full national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.
- The Iraq Study Group Report recommends: `The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the United States government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.'; and `The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil.'.
- The House of Representatives has passed 6 separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq including three of which have been enacted into law by the President: Public Law 109-289, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 110-28.
SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.
No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
- (1) to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and
- (2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.
posted by Vigilante at 7/25/2007 07:31:00 AM
15 Moderated Comments:
'This bill is currently being debated on the Floor of the House of Representatives.'
Aren`t they the bad guys ?
Isn`t the Congress part of the axis of evil ?
Aren`t the permanent bases already up and running ?
I note the bill passed the house by a very large bipartsan majority (399-24) moments ago.
Of couse, since it is long held US Policy that no "permanent bases" ever be established in any foreign country....
And since there are no "permanent bases" in any country today, not even Germany and Japan which have housed US troops for over 60 straight years....
This was simply a "straw man" designed to keep the moveon.org crowd happy while the house actually does nothing at all to solve the crisis in Iraq.
I'm still waiting for real leaders to begin to propose real solutions for the quagmire of Iraqi occupation.
I'm still waiting for real leaders to begin to propose real solutions for the quagmire of Iraqi occupation.
-------------
The Wizard:
That's two of us!
Only solution is to leave the Iraqis on their own, create a quarantine around the zone - sure, not a guarantee for success but heck, this Bush admin has gone through every manual in the book, time they took the simplest route.
As we say in French "Pourquoi faire simple quand c'est facile de compliquer?"
Hope your Congressmen (and women) will have the gall not to buckle under White House return fire!
"Hope your Congressmen (and women) will have the gall not to buckle under White House return fire!"
Huh ?
Are not the Congress people the ones that got us into this ?
Executive, Congressional, Judicial system all working together to do what they have done so well ?
Keep the economy growing by feeding special interest groups that are their actual pay masters ?
Could it be that we have a systemic problem ?
California leads the way!
With a little help from North Carolina!
It is impossible not to point out that Wizard's comments closely paraphrased GOP House Minority Leader John Boehner's remarks, who also called the debate a waste of time.
OTOH, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, noted that the Bush Administration
". . . has drawn a parallel between our proposed sustained presence in Iraq and the U.S. obligation to South Korea after the Korean War.
The Korean peninsula over half a century was vital to our security interests during the Cold War. But Iraq is not Korea. It is now beyond question that our national security is being harmed -- not helped -- by our continuing vast footprint in Iraq."
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said she was ever so willing to waste more of Boehner's time:
". . . the Democratic Congress will go on record -- every day if necessary -- to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the President is taking in Iraq. . . to . . . fight for a redeployment of our forces as the central element of a new-direction strategy for Iraq."
Wizard clearly is on board with Republicans' instinctive impulse to glom-on to the spoils of NeoCons' conquest of Iraq, even as he calls it "Bush's Folly."
To save M.D. some ink, I acknowledge that both Pelosi and Lantos are Californians!
On wasting time: It would have been better for all of us if Congress had invested more of its time before it had invested our troops and our money in Vietnam - excuse me - Iraq. Better now than even later, I guess.
If the market starts to tank, the liberals and the conservatives will turn on the white house like one large pack of angry dogs.
That factor is the only factor that is used in said debate of Iraq.
If people start losing jobs because of the oil price, which just climbed very high today and will be going much higher, then middle America will demand Bush`s head.
The oil price will determine more about the future of Iraq and bases there than our pathetic political system.
The fine line between making a whopping profit, and making the system dysfunctional, may now be starting to be crossed.
Skip writes:
If the market starts to tank, the liberals and the conservatives will turn on the white house like one large pack of angry dogs.
My response:
Excellent observation and I agree completely. It all goes back to the wallet!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
COMMENT MODERATION:
1) Comments of insufficient materiality or excessive length will be scrubbed.
2) Anonymous comments are temporarily suspended.
3) Comments off topic or of a personal nature are welcomed via email. (Of course, this might require shedding of the cloak of anonymity.)
Informed Comment reports that
...many Iraqis simply do not believe that the US congress is serious when it votes against permanent bases in Iraq. Members of parliament say that they see these enormous hardened bases being built, which is practical proof to the contrary. They think the Democratic Congress is just posturing because of its struggle with the Bush White House. Shiite MP Qasim Da'ud said that, however, even in future US troops would not be accepted in Iraq, in part because the country's neighbors are afraid of Washington's intentions. (He is referring to Iran.)
Post a Comment
<< Home