Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition

[Thickasabrick]

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law.

As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.

A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."

The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a U.S. presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq.

While the Pentagon does not necessarily plan to use any of the emergency funds to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq, congressional Democrats wanted Congress to be on record against such a long-term military arrangement.

Doing so, they argued, could help overcome Middle East fears that the United States intended to control the region militarily, at least in part to oversee foreign oil reserves.

"The perception that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq indefinitely is fueling the insurgency and making our troops more vulnerable," said Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who won House approval of her amendment on permanent bases.

Continued...

<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-09T205941Z_01_N09199214_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-CONGRESS-FUNDING.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2>

Those sneaky bastards!!!!

[NYC]

1. Note all the double negatives.

Clearly stated, they have approved funding for permanent military bases in Iraq.

[Thickasabrick]

2. It's still not too late. The house tried to sneak this back in

"in the middle of the night". It still has some work and if everyone contacts their legislators and demand that these funds will not be used to build permanent military bases, it might still have a chance. This would send a strong message to the Iraqi people that we do not intend to stay there permanently...which was why it was written in the first place.

There needs to be a law prohibiting changing things in bills unless it's talked about openly.

[rodeodance]

3. looky, Obey tried to put it back in but a Rupug would not allow it.

"The House and Senate went on record opposing permanent bases, but now the Republicans are trying to sneak them back in the middle of the night," Lee said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authored the Senate language.

Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work session to write a compromise spending bill.

Wisconsin Rep. David Obey, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, tried to reinsert the language, but it was opposed by Rep. Jim Kolbe, the Arizona Republican responsible for foreign affairs portions of the spending bill.

Next week, the House is scheduled to have a wide-ranging debate about the Iraq war at which time Democrats are likely to raise this issue again.

[badgervan]

6. Yikes

I'd say that now is the time ( actually, way past time ) for some dems in Congress to grow a set, and start doing their jobs. This one-party bullshit is getting dangerous - and so against what is left of our Constitution. Cheney's whole aim was for a permanent presence in Iraq - do not believe anything less. Unbelievable. The Cheneyites, with good 'ol boy george jr. as figurehead, intend to have that oil - one way or the other.
This is what happens when a country lets fear take over for reason. November can't get here soon enough. This vet is worried at what we have allowed our elected representatives to get away with in the name of "protecting us". We best act soon, folks.

[saigon68]

8. They won't "Grow a set"

Especially DINOs like Joementum Limpmann -- Dino Whiner (Conn) He along with a lot of others actually wants us to stay there and kill a couple hundred thousand more Islamics and (insert racial epithet here)

[TexasLawyer]

4. no exit strategy?

There never will be one. The plan has always been permanent occupation.

[Emillereid]

5. Permanent bases were one of the main reasons for invading Iraq --

and they are where much of the 'war' budget goes. We are not leaving -- purchase orders for these bases are for many years into the future. We probably won't leave Iraq until the empire totally collapses -- Iraq is where the oil is. it's a great 'geo-political strategic' piece of real estate.

[norml]

7. Operation Iraqi Fiefdom

They've never had any intention of leaving.

[Pachamama]

9. Did anyone every really believe that we were only going in temporarily?

Seriously....I always believed that they were going in with the intention of staying and building bases. And when John Kerry mentioned it in the debates and there was never much talk about it, I knew then that the 14+ bases being built were intended for permanence.

[truthisfreedom]

10. this is proof that the GOP is complicit with bushco. no further evidence

needs to be collected... the GOP is completely behind the plan to occupy Iraq forever. it's time to close the net on them all. they've sealed their own fate.

[Zeebo]

11. We will be there until a new fuel source is found to power this Western...

Capitalist System. Right now nothing compares to oil in it's energy output. Too bad it is finite and global production is peaking soon, if not now. The American Empire is strategically preparing for major geopolitical events that will continue to unfold due to this precious resource running out. The troops will never fully come home until the wealthy elites feel that the resource (oil) and the control of the profits are not worth it.

Republicans, and some Democrats, argue that the war was not about oil. They fall for the stock propaganda reasons of promoting democracy/spreading freedom, protecting us from this madman with WMD's. They try to shoot down the "War for Oil" argument, by stating that oil still has to reach the market and we (America) would still have access to the oil at market prices no matter who controlled it. That argument is absolutely idiotic, we are not fighting for access to the oil, we are fighting for the enormous profit that comes from controlling it!