Kerry on the 14 permanent military bases in Iraq

[happydreams]

So when are the troops coming home? How about never and there never was any intention of leaving Iraq.

There are two uncomfortable facts that I can't get out of my head. First, the collapse of the WTC #7 building in the afternoon of 9/11 when only a small portion of was on fire and history shows that buildings of this type and the Twin Towers have never collapsed due to fire. The mofo was demolished and thats that. It's just a hunch but I'd wager that Marvin Bush, Dubya's younger brother, was very familiar with this building as a operations headquarters for 9/11. Remember Marvin was on the BOD of the Kuwaiti owned "Securacom" that oversaw security at the WTC complex and Dulles airport. Where was he on 9/11?

The second fact that gets me is the existence of these 14 permanent military bases that the MSM so aggressively ignored after Kerry brought them up during the 2004 Presidential debates. I mean you hear no-thing about them even now when the talking heads are speculating on when the troops are coming home. I remember vaguely when Kerry mentioned them that Jim Lehrer just moved onto the next question when Bushboy remained mum.

From The Nation:

In his first debate with President Bush, John Kerry made a surprisingly bold assertion about US policy toward Iraq: "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," Kerry said. "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."

Though the media ignored Kerry's statement and failed to do any substantive follow-up research, his comments were well-grounded in reality. On the day of the debate the Christian Science Monitor spotlighted the findings of defense specialist John Pike, whose website, GlobalSecurity.org, located twelve "enduring bases" in Iraq, including satellite photos and names. In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that US engineers were constructing fourteen such long-term encampments--the number Kerry referred to. The New York Times previously placed the number at four.

While the exact figure may change, suspicions of undisclosed US imperial plans--exemplified by permanent military bases--rightfully linger. Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested moving US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia into Iraq. In October, a survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that two-thirds of respondents disapproved of a permanent military presence, even though more than half thought the US would build the bases anyway.

Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan.

"People need to get realistic and think in terms of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic stability in the region is reached," Dewey Clarridge, the CIA's former chief of Arab operations (and Iran-contra point man), told the Sun.




http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?pid=2132

[Skink]

1. Kerry should have harped on it over and over.

He says these things once. The Bush administrations success is the relentless drive to do the wrong thing.

[globalvillage]

5. He did.

Senator John Kerry, who introduced the idea into the national discourse during last fall's first presidential debate, restated it in a recent op-ed in the New York Times. "The president must ... announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq," Kerry wrote. "Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH06Ak02.html

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.
more...
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=251617

There's more.

edit, from Hardball

KERRY: I believe that's the wrong signal and yes they have never been willing to say we will not have permanent bases. I think it is critical for the United States to announce that. We can protect our interests in the region. We will be stronger against Iran if we're out of Iraq. We will be stronger with respect to what Putin is doing in Russia today if we regain our moral authority in the region
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12193430/

[karynnj]

9. The 3 debates were the only unfiltered time Kerry had to

speak to the country other than his convention speech. He did mention it at other times - but this was one that people should have heard. (Note that the media mostly ignored it, though as mentioned it was a very bold comment that said the country was not being told the true plan. What is surprising is that they didn't question it or even call Kerry wrong.)

Note: Kerry's Iraq plan led to the US stabalizing what it could, rehabilitating what it could and leaving - and the steps matched the goals. Bush explained no goals (in 2003 or 2004 ) and his actions didn't lead to the goals the US thought existed. Only after the election did he speak of spreading democracy.

[Parisle]

2. That's the PNAC Plan

----Regardless of what any US politician says, the Arab world isn't fooled. Kerry had his moments in the 2004 campaign, but in the final analysis, he proved to be a vascillating weenie. Show me a democrat who isn't afraid to breathe the initials, "PNAC." Then we'll have a candidate.

[globalvillage]

6. Generally speaking

we do not make gratuitous attacks on Democrats here.

Welcome to DU.

[LiberalUprising]

7. I don't think it's so much that

they are afraid as much as they support the PNAC goals, as only a handful are calling for real and complete withdrawl, little good does anything else but complete withdrawl do since there are the 'enduring' bases in place.

On top of this problem in Iraq is the almost total support by the Dems for the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the continued occupation and attack of Palestine.

Right you are, the Dems talk is just that

Dem or Repug in power we will still be in Iraq for a long, long time. The Good cop, bad cop game.

[karynnj]

11. That would be good for you and the converted

In 2004, it would not have been believed. Kerry had far less media time then any previous candidate. If he used it to convince people of things they would not have believed and would have fought believing, he would have lost be a landslide. As it was, Kerry used the debates excellently to show people he had logical plans, could lead, was Presidential, and was someone they could trust with the presidency.

Kerry is one of the few to have used the word neo-con. By the way, he did not vascillate on anything.

[tabasco]

12. A Silver Star and three Purple hearts.

A weenie, huh?

I suppose you have a Silver Star too.

[karynnj]

19. And a bronze star with valor

Seems a pretty brave guy to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. What was braver than earning those medals...

was throwing them over the fence to protest that terrible war.

Why he didn't continue that legacy I haven't the foggiest idea.

[karynnj]

23. I agree

Nixon's enemy list was well known before Kerry chose to challenge the war. Kerry knew that he could be sacrificing his potential political future. (In fact, it nearly did kill his future when he lost in 1972.)

Kerry did continue that legacy. In 1985, after he became a Senator, he again risked his political career when some vets came to him about the Contras running drugs into this country and guns into Nicaragua (in defiance of the Congress). Kerry pursued this, at the height of Reagan's popularity, because he saw the parallel to our illegal actions in Vietnam. He proved this because he investigated in spite of the justice department stonewalling and the Reagan/Bush people intimidating his witnesses and even attempting to set him up.

He also continued it with BCCI - when he continued because there was a need to stop a bank that assisted terrorist networks - even though Democratic money men and even people near former President Carter had been bought off. He stood absolutely alone without a single Democrat backing him. They even had Jackie Kennedy call to convince him to stop - but he continued until he had no committee to pursue it with. Then he took it to a NYC DA, who (with Britain) closed down the bank.

I challenge you to list any other politician who took on three unpopular principled causes of these magnitudes (each was several years work). Kerry also took the lead on the POW/MIA investigation that others like McCain thought was not a winning issue. (Bob Smith, not McCain was the ranking Republican.) Looking at all the these things - Kerry has spent over half his public life fighting for very important, unpopular issues.

I assume you mean the IWR, Kerry has explained why he voted as he did a million times - at worse he is guilty of thinking they could divert Bush by getting the inspectors in and the rest of world involved.

If you want to see the mature version of the man who spoke in 1971,
watch the Faneuil Hall speech on April 22, 2006, the 35th anniversary of

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_04_22.html

[Jara sang]

3. My thoughts exactly. WTC7 was operations center for the whole thing.

But was there supposed to be "another hijacked flight" that was supposed to slam into it? Or did they just think with all the confusion and chaos and rubble from the two twin towers that they could just sneak that one in too? Also the fact that they "pulled it" much later that day tells me that there were conflicts on whether or not they should bring WTC7 down or not.

[MissWaverly]

4. yes, and I found it unusual that the reinforced building that

had been made into a beacon of the war on terror had to be pulled down as well, when it was
not struck by an airplane and not impacted by the other 2 buildings, I thought this was to
destroy evidence.

[Raydawg1234]

13. I remember hearing somehwere, that WT7 is the spot where the rebuilding

would have to start. That is possible reason for bringing it down.

[High Plains]

8. Huh? I thought we were talking about Kerry and military bases.

How did WTC7 get into this conversation?

[madokie]

10. I guess it's just the way it goes sometimes

peace
:hi:

[Raydawg1234]

14. Duh, it talks about it in the OP did you even bother to read it?

[Time for change]

15. That is such a crucial point

No fucking wonder the Iraqis don't trust us. And they never will as long as this administration is in office. And neither will anybody else.

And the media just ignores it!!! -- just like they ignored the fact that there was no reasonable justification for the war in the first place.

[JohnnyRingo]

16. We built "permanent" bases in Saudi Arabia

Permanent until Buxh succumbed to Bin Laden's demands and vacated two Years ago.
Now they belong to the Saudis.

When we have to leave Iraq the bases there will be left behind as well ....complements of the US taxpayers.

Mission Accomplished

[happydreams]

20. I'd like to hear more about this....

like the timing and all. I know that the Saudi Bin Ladin group (a construction Co.) got the contract to rebuilt the Khobar Towers after they were blown up in 1996.
All of these things need to be revisited.

:hi:

[globalvillage]

17. So, what happened to this from May?

Signing statement?
Or did he find another way around it?

Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) that would require the Bush administration not to use any appropriated funds for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. The amendment also called for the U.S. not exercise control over Iraqi oil. Biden’s amendment reads as follows:

To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that similarly stated no funds should be used for permanent base construction.

Congress has now spoken with a clear and unambiguous voice a time when there are troubling signs that the administration wants to make the U.S. presence permanent in Iraq. For example, the administration is currently constructing a $592 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad that spans the size of 80 football fields.

Will this be yet another law that the administration chooses to ignore?

UPDATE: Atrios believes Bush won’t listen.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/04/senate-speaks-no-permanent-bases-in-iraq/

[happydreams]

21. Thanks for digging that up. This story is HUGE. IMHO

[bananarepublican]

26. WOW!!! Why hasn't this made more of a world-wide SPLASH? n/t

[librarycard]

18. Somebody needs to tell the Virginia US rep. Jo Ann Davis (R)

Davis eagerly anticipates bringing U.S. troops back from Iraq. "I'm not for putting permanent bases there," she said. "As soon as we get enough (Iraqis) trained to take over their country, bring our babies home."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-98302sy0aug12,0,5803477.story?coll=dp-widget-news

Davis appears to have no idea that we're building a Vatican-sized embassy in Iraq, not to mention the enduring bases. How can she not be for putting bases there? They are THERE! Bring our "babies" home is BS. She's another RW hypocrite. That's why I sent the democratic challenger Shawn O'Donnell money after I read Davis' nonsense.

[politicasista]

24. kick

:kick:

[BlueIris]

25. Yeah. It can't be kicked enough.

God bless Senator K.