It's about time.

[whometense]

Liberal Oasis:

Earlier in the week, LiberalOasis noted there was additional momentum for the Center for American Progress’ “Strategic Deployment” Iraq plan.

Howard Dean had already been trying to get Democrats to coalesce around the plan, and Sunday’s implicit endorsement from Zbigniew Brzezinski may give it a new shot in the arm.

Part of that plan, which Zbig did not explicitly mention Sunday, was the renouncement of permanent military bases.

And a gentle reminder of who got there first, September 30, 2004, first presidential debate:

KERRY: The time line that I've set out -- and again, I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it.

As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them.

When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil."

[MH1]

1. Newsweek: Extended presence of U.S. in Iraq looms large

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

(snip)

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other U.S. officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from “permanent,” and the official U.S. position is carefully worded.

Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman on international security, told The Associated Press it would be “inappropriate” to discuss future basing until a new Iraqi government is in place, expected in the coming weeks.

‘Permanent duty stations’
Less formally, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about “permanent duty stations” by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was “an interesting question.” He said it would have to be raised by the incoming Baghdad government, if “they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time.”

In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. “If they aren’t planning for bases, they ought to say so,” she said. “I would expect to hear ‘No bases.”’

Right now what is heard is the pouring of concrete.

(snip)

[whometense]

5. There's something going on that I don't ever recall

having seen before. Not even with Nixon. Last night I was watching the news coverage of Bush's press train wreck, and someone raised the question of whether anyone was listening to him and Cheney at this point. I've been wondering the same thing. I literally found myself screaming at the tv while Bush was speaking (my family is readying the straightjacket as we speak) - every freaking word was a lie. Every freaking word. Who are they talking to? It scares me, frankly; they are so disconnected from where the American people are right now that it makes me wonder what fail-safe plan they have to keep their policies in place. They just say whatever, and it's all blatant lies, and they don't seem to care that we are fully aware that it's all lies.

I'm honestly starting to think these people are all batshit insane.

[TayTay]

2. This is critical. American has to renounce a permanent Iraq presence

This is part of what is fueling the insurgency. It is the concrete reminder that Bush's blather about going to Iraq to bring freedom to the people is a lie. He went to control the flow of oil, those bases prove it.

Tell me what you read from this Senate Foreign Relations Committee exchage from 2/15/06

SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Madame Secretary.

The other day General Kimmitt, Mark Kimmitt, gave a speech in London to the Institute of Strategic Studies, wherein he reportedly said the United States will not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq; our position is, when we leave, we won't leave any bases there. I wrote to General Pace to follow up on this, and General Pace wrote me back and said, "At present, the Department of Defense has no plans for the permanent basing of U.S. forces in Iraq."

This has long been an issue of contention. So, you know, General Casey has said the sense of American occupation is part of what feeds the insurgency. The administration, however, has never formally said we're not going to have permanent bases. So I would ask you today, is it in fact the policy of this administration not to have permanent basing in Iraq?

SEC. RICE: I think General Pace has spoken to that, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: So --

SEC. RICE: And he speaks for the administration.

Senator, our job now is to use our forces to help the Iraqis gain control of their own security environment, to train their forces, to protect our people who need to go out in the field to be a presence outside of Baghdad. That is the purpose of our forces. As the president said, we don't want --

SEN. KERRY: I understand that.

SEC. RICE: -- to be there one day longer than we need to be.

SEN. KERRY: No, we all want that transition. I'm just trying to figure out what the long term is, because I don't think the administration has actually said that before with clarity. So if you're affirming today what the generals have said is the policy, that's a step forward.

SEC. RICE: Well, Senator, I think General Pace has spoken to this. I don't want to, in this forum, try and prejudge everything that might happen all the way into the future. The policy of this administration is to as quickly as possible turn over responsibility for security to the Iraqis. And as the president said, we will be very pleased at the day when American forces can come home.

SEN. KERRY: So the conclusion for what you've just said is that the civilian leadership, which is how we lead the military in the United States, has a different position from the uniformed leadership, which is -- you're reserving the right to make that decision in the future?

SEC. RICE: Senator, I said I'm not going to try to speak to something that is that far into the future.

SEN. KERRY: I heard what you said. I understand.

SEC. RICE: We are, for instance --

SEN. KERRY: No, I understand.

SEC. RICE: Yes. Sorry.

SEN. KERRY: I got your answer.

[whometense]

4. I remember that exchange,

and I remember JK's tone when he said, "I got your answer." It wasn't pleasant.

Classic Rice runaround (why is this woman popular with ANYONE???), no answers given, not a breath taken that was not pre-approved by K-K-K-Karl.

Even for someone who is not steeped in this stuff, this seems to me to be a no-brainer. Permanent presence=permanent enemy. How can anyone not get this?

I got an email the other day from Greg Palast that really creeped me out.

Bush Didn't Bungle Iraq, You Fools
THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCCOMPLISHED
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian

20 March 2006

Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.

On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.

But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you've forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher's original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,

"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."

O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn't sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq's OIF.

"It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.

And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."

Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.

Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.

There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get MORE of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing TOO MUCH of it.

You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping LESS of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.

It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just LOVE it.

Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.

No so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.

As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.

In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'. It was an Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.

**********

And by the way, I don't hear anyone explaining who those 14 bases we're apparently pouring the concrete for are meant to house. How can you say we have no plans for a permanent presence if you're building FOURTEEN permanent bases????? Pardon me while my head explodes.

[blm]

7. And HOW did the corporate media report this? Oh yeah....they DIDN'T.

.

[ProSense]

9. More lies from

Cantbelievher Lies.

[ProSense]

3. Bill and letter

Strategy for Success in Iraq Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 1993 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1993
To provide for a comprehensive, new strategy for success in Iraq that includes a sustainable political solution and the redeployment of United States forces tied to specific political and military benchmarks.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 10, 2005

Snip...

SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY.

To implement the strategy under section 3, the President must undertake aggressive diplomatic, political, military and economic measures, including actions to achieve the following:

(1) Reduce the sense of United States occupation of Iraq by--

(A) committing publicly not to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to maintain a large United States combat force on Iraq soil indefinitely;

02/08/2006

Kerry Asks Pentagon to Clarify that America Will Not Have Permanent Military Presence in Iraq

WASHINGTON – Today Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) sent a letter to General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking him to clearly and publicly state that there will be no permanent American military bases in Iraq. Earlier this week, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said that the United States will “not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq.” Kerry’s letter calls on General Pace to clarify and back these statements, for the good of American troops and our long-term goals in the region. Kerry has long argued that announcing that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq is key to undermining the insurgency.
Below is a copy of the letter.

February 8, 2006

General Peter Pace, USMC Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 9999 The Pentagon Room 2E878 Washington, DC 20318-9999

Dear General Pace:

I was interested to see reports of Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt’s speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London where he reportedly said the United States will “not maintain any long-term bases in Iraq. . . . Our position is when we leave we will not have any bases there.”

For some time, a number of us have argued that it is vital to the success of our mission in Iraq for the United States to make clear in public that we seek no permanent military bases in Iraq. We know from General Casey that the insurgency in Iraq has fed on the sense of occupation. A simple declaration that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq, I believe, will help undermine the claims of some home-grown insurgents who argue that the United States seeks to steal Iraq’s oil and dominate its people.

In the interest of clarity, can you state unequivocally that the United States will not maintain any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq? If Brigadier General Kimmmit’s statement is accurate, I urge you to personally state it clearly in public. I believe that doing so would be a great service to those brave Americans serving so well in Iraq and to the goals of American policy in the region.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

[blm]

6. It's bad enough corporate media refuses to cover the facts of the issues

being debated, and sad that it takes so long for even left blogs to notice HOW strong Kerry is and has been consistently on his position.

[ginnyinWI]

8. K&R--this is an important aspect that needs coverage. n/t

[ProSense]

10. Good stuff!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/515