Cong. Barbara Lee: No Permanent Bases in Iraq

[deminks]

via Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/24/permanent-bases-2/

Our guest blogger is Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), a member of the House International Relations Committee.

Last Tuesday, the House took an important first step regarding the war in Iraq. It voted in favor of an important amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill that I introduced, along with my colleagues, Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). (Watch it here.)

The amendment we offered was very simple: it stated that no funds from this spending bill will be used to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq. I’m pleased to say that the House unanimously approved this amendment.

While differences exist over how and when we should leave Iraq, we should all agree that U.S. forces should not be in Iraq forever. The House is now on record as supporting that position. Unfortunately, the administration’s position is unclear.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.” But last week, General John Abizaid, the Army general in charge of the U.S. troops in Iraq, told the House defense appropriations subcommittee that the U.S. could end up having permanent bases in Iraq. And today, the Los Angeles Times reports that Bush “continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases” in Iraq.

[FloridaPat]

1. They've been building 12-14 bases for two years now. It helped increase

the price of homes because concret was scarce. So if the agreements are already there, I would guess they wouldn't count? And it is only the spending bill. There are two income streams to Iraq - DOD budget and the emergency stuff off the books. Does this cover both? All?

[deminks]

2. I don't know the details of the amendment.

I only think that this is the real story of why we are going to have troops in Iraq post Smirky. It's about the bases, now. Smirky must have them. I am sure he will find a way - he said today he doesn't need Congress anymore.

Having troops in there after Smirky "leaves" office has nothing to do with helping Iraq build a democracy - that is horse pucky. He doesn't give a rat's ass about Iraq. There is another post here recently about Iraq being on it's own for recovery. It is all about the permanent bases.

I admire Congresswoman Lee's steps in standing against this abomination. We must do what we can.