Why Don't We Call Them On It?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

I see many Democrats criticize the President's strategy, or lack of strategy, in Iraq. Whether it is Kerry or Murtha or Pelosi , they all attack Bush for "staying the course". What are they thinking? Don't they realize that we went to Iraq to set up permanent military bases? Don't they know we went to ensure cheap gas for American businesses as much as we went to secure a Democratic Iraq for Iraqis? We're not leaving until at least 2008, and only then if a politically advantageous opportunity presents itself.

Pressing Bush to withdraw or redeploy in Iraq seems like a poor strategy because we know he and Rumsfeld will NEVER DO IT. We should call this Administration out and make them prove to us, and more importantly the Arabic world, that our intentions in Iraq are temporary and just. I don't believe that the lack of an exit strategy in Iraq was a coincidence or a result of poor planning. It was intentional.

Evidence for the above can be found below:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/12/wirq12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/12/ixnews.html

[AndyTiedye]

1. We've Been Calling Them On It. Nobody Can Hear Us

[butterfly77]

5. They hear Murtha because he speaks clearly and..

he goes into detail and he shows them as the hypocrites that they are.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

7. yes

Murtha is leading the way but we have a few more Democrats in Congress than just him. Everyone needs to get in sync on this, even Hillary and Lieberman should be able to support this without recanting their pro-war positions.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Not Lieberman. Permanent US Bases in Iraq Would Be Just Fine With Him

"Joe Lieberman puts country above party. Unfortuantely that country is Israel."

[Scriptor Ignotus]

6. we aren't as vocal as we need to be

I contend that this needs to be issue #1 when it comes to Iraq. This strategy allows us to point out this Administration's hypocrisy while defusing the inevitable and horrid "cut and run" rhetoric from the Right.

[blm]

2. Did you pay attention in 2004 campaign - permanent bases was a BIG issue

for Kerry and he brought it up during the debates - the problem is that corporate media did not even choose to DISCUSS the issue.

Kerry also sent a letter requesting an official statement from the Pentagon regarding permanent bases, specifically to collect evidence and make it an issue in the press - unfortunately the press will not hold Bush accountable, no matter how many times Kerry or Clark have brought it up.

Here's the letter:

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

# # #

[Scriptor Ignotus]

4. were you able to find the General's response to this online?

because I wasn't able to. So Kerry wrote a letter to a General and received no response. Wow. Sorry, I'm a little underwhelmed.

My point was that this needs to be our MAIN talking point that gets used to death, a la how the Republicans do it. I don't buy the excuse that the media doesn't cover this. We simply aren't speaking about it loud or often enough. If we are redundant and clear on this, the media will slowly pick it up.

The media is like an untrained puppy, we have to repeat ourselves over and over and over until they learn how to obey. The Republicans have this basic communication tactic completely mastered and we are way behind on it. I see Democrats on all the major TV shows and they are on CSPAN Washington Journal virtually every day. We can get this message out. But it must be repeated ad infin.

I dug around and found someone who agreed with me:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/15/91421/2515

Another disturbing article.
http://www.progressiveu.org/234940-conservatives-change-legislation-to-allow-permanent-bases-in-iraq

[blm]

9. Big surprise, the Dems are not on the same page - we all KNOW that.

But, I find it odd that you would get snarky against those Dems who have made a point about keeping permanent bases in the public eye and refusing to let BushInc off the hook about it.

Contact other Dems and tell them you want Kerry supported on no permanent bases in Iraq. Why waste time dumping on those who have been doing EXACTLY what you say you wanted.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

10. ah i'm just frustrated like many of us are

I see the Republicans able to say one thing and the echo chamber just bounces it around and around. How can we have no unity in our opposition to Bush? How is it possible?

I will contact my Congress peeps and I hope everyone else does too. I'll cc Dean as well.

Cheers.

[neoblues]

3. "as much as we went ... Democratic Iraq"?

They went to ensure stable, uninterrupted (and therefore stable/less expensive) oil supplies (also satisfying *'s lust for power and revenge). Providing Democracy to IRAQIs was an afterthought--a useful excuse when no WMD's were found, as well as potentially helpful in terms of maintaining a long term presence. So, it was useful and may have been a part of whatever skimpy plan they had scrawled on the back of a napkin... but the oil aspect dwarfs it.

If there's anything funny, in an ironic way, about this, it's watching Republicans discover the limitations of their original thinking. They thought "what good is it being the world's biggest, baddest, power--if we can't just go take what we want? it's simple, we just flex our muscles--it won't take much, a week or two at the most--and the IRAQI's will kiss our feet for freeing them!". So they tried it and found out why it wasn't so simple after all.