OMG! Pelosi is the WORST! House Bans Permanent Bases In Iraq!

Quick! Replace her! Replace her! :rofl:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/25/house-bans-permanent-bases-in-iraq/

"Today, the House passed a bill stating “it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.” Speaker Pelosi explained that “today’s vote can again make clear to the President, to the Administration, to the American people, to the people in the Middle East, to the people in Iraq — that the American people are opposed to a permanent military presence in Iraq.”"

doesn't that bill now go to the Senate?

She has admitted only wanting to pull out SOME troops, not all. And in all fairness, Kucinich is the only candidate who supports withdrawing ALL our troops.

Richardson's Iraq platform calls for total withdrawal:

"No Residual Forces Left Behind
We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by Al Qaeda, other insurgents, and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove ALL troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool. And once all US troops are out of Iraq, Al Qaeda foreigners will no longer be able to justify their presence there, and the Iraqis will drive them out.

"

Neither of them exactly what anyone thinks of as top-tier candidates, unfortunately.

Richardson really needs to pick up campaigning, I'm not sure what he can do to get more media attention but he'd better do it soon.

Not to many people are apparently hearing it, though.

Someone better check with her.

NOTHING will get past him until Congress deals WITH HIM.

Everything else is just a waste of time and tax dollars.

I hope it takes refills

New Hampshire and Maine could use help. There are many others as well.

as supporting never-ending war in Iraq.

Can we make them into roller rinks?

I got dibs on the first speed skate.

Limbo! Yyyyyy.M.C.A!

of the ultimate outcome of these issues she has dominion over?

Or, are they?


KUDOS, to PELOSI and CREW! :toast:

Of course, it must make it through the hurdles. Everything does regarding passing legislation, regulations, laws and the like. It should be an interesting journey. I will watch what different people try to do to it. It will tell alot about where people stand on the concepts bush and his movement put forth.

No permanent bases in Iraq and a $5.85 minimum wage!

:eyes:

Call it anything but a "base"

covered under this, and will not constitute a permanent base, even though it is.

big talk, no effect

less time than the Buddha statues in Afghanistan?

if they aren't already. Does this bill effect them or any future bases?

:headbang:
rocknation

;-)

The bases that are already built though, I think would fall under any future money to repair them or have them staffed by military. My guess though is that the Defense Dpt. will just say the bases are for the future Iraqi military and will be handed over at the appropriate time, and therefore don't constitute permanent US bases. My guess is also that the massive "Embassy" is also excluded.

text of bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110PiQnFV::

Key part

"The Iraq Study Group Report recommends: `The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the United States government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.'; and `The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil.'."

This would mean that if the sham government of Iraq requests bases, they can exist and are considered "temporary", of course many in the government wouldn't last a day without US troops, so it wouldn't be surprising if this sham government did request this.

to be advisory

Congress is working! They are trying to work this from different angles. I don't know if it will work, but at least they are trying to work within the law.

:wtf:

in an aggressive and vigorous way, we are bad people if the leadership decides not too? Is that the gist of your accusation that we hate our party? Just trying to define why we are so bad.

to attack those of us that what our system defended with the maximum effort and tools.

Sorry if you do not like the Democratic process.

That picture better describes republican attacks on our system of checks and balances.

who I think hate good news. Wouldn't have anything to bitch about, you know?

;)

she had better Make Chimpy sign it now, or she's Cindy's bitch

will they be removed in 2 years? 5 years? 60 years? When will congress move to end the occupation?

:shrug:

Of course, the actual bill clarifies further:

Sadly, "long-term" is also undefined...

Furthermore, it could be argued that the U.S. isn't "seeking" a long-term or permanent presence, but feels that it must stay "until the mission is accomplished (again)"; to leave would be "irresponsible".

thought there was a clause on this that banned taking the Iraqi oil as well. Does anyone know?

H. R. 2929
To limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.



SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and

(2) to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c11063jP4r::

I was watching earlier without my glasses, and I thought that's what I saw. :hi:

will be privatized per new Iraqi legislation. Hmmm....

VETO.

It all starts with impeachment to remove the causes for all the ills that we are experiencing. Until then, it's all for your benefit. Meaning, you. Since you are one of the ones who keep falling for it.

Save this and PM me when * signs this into law. I'd love to eat crow when the Iraq bases are closed.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

But I have a feeling we will never have to eat it. :rofl:

:sarcasm:

Sadly, there are people on here dumb enough to say that without the :sarcasm:. PM me if you want a link to see it.

:rofl:

Bake

And the person who said it wasn't joking. That's what so pitiful ...

Bake

Right here on DU...

I am glad this passed, and it shows that Nancy is hearing the anti-war protests.
but we know if guiliani or hillary or many of the others are elected next year, those bases will remain for the time being.

“It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

:toast:

and i am sure Barbara sees it as limited, especially without strong congressional leadership to end the war/occupation, and with Dem presidential candidates committing to continued US military presence in Iraq.

Thanks Bloo! :hi:

:sarcasm:

Pass them bills, make them law because that will rein in Commander PoopyPants. Yeah, that's the ticket. I bet he's really upset right now that Nancy won't let him build any bases in Iraq. Cheney is probably distraught as well. I feel really bad that we've tied their hands.

but it passed with 399 yea, 24 no, 9 not voting. That's a pretty good majority, it will be interesting what happens in the Senate.

I guess if you don't want to deal with impeachment, and you don't want to withdraw troops NOW, it's good to put on some kind of show for the masses.

All the rest of this hogwash is just for show. Ain't falling for it.

the Blackwater mercenaries it wants to man the already built fortresses.

I hope Pelosi closed the loopholes.

EDIT: DUers slay me.

How dare she!!!!

:sarcasm:

Cuz you know, a based there for the next 3000 years isn't actually "permanant". Even one syllable of wiggle room they'll exploit it.

Nice symbolic vote though. I'd like all democratic presidential candidates to come out against military bases in Iraq, permanent, enduring or otherwise

Some are heralding a bill passed today by Congress as some sort of victory (while Congress is actually debating a large Pentagon bill to which Murtha says he wants to attach a non-binding clause that the US has to move some US troops around (redeploy) in Iraq in 6 months.



What the bill actually states:



No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2007.

Why is this bill non-binding and chiefly rhetorical?



Any subsequent act of congress would supercede this act of congress. This bill does not prevent any future bill to expend funds to do these things. Such a bill would just cast this act aside.



The bases already being built in Iraq and that have been built and fully funded by this same congress are of permanent capability. As long as they get funded year to year, this bill is a joke. Just because they do not call them “permanent” (calling them that would be stupid from every diplomatic angle), does not mean that they are not defacto of a permanent nature.



The same holds true for the second part. The US presence – fully funded by the Democratic Party that controls Congress – does serve the purpose for economic control of Iraq – not only of resources but every other economic way including fuel availability, water, electricity, reconstruction – everything. The US is occupier. The oil law which privatizes and invites foreign companies to control Iraqi oil fields was insisted upon as a benchmark by the Democratic Party controlled congress. That is the actual policy.



Again, explicitly stating “we are funding bases for the purpose of controlling Iraq’s oil” would again be stupid. Much smarter to say – we’re not going to do that when in actual fact that is precisely the policy. Kind of like: “We’re not funding another $100 billion for the war with the oil law bench mark to get our tentacles into that oil – heck – we even passed a bill that says we’re not doing that – heh heh heh!”



This bill is more blowhard pap from a pro-war congress. The victory is for the Democratic Party that they have hoodwinked some into marketing this rhetorical non-binding and ineffective bill as if it is some tangible victory for a movement that in actual fact has been routed in vote after vote (the votes that count – for funding). We have had no victory. The Democratic Party keeps the war machine fully oiled with billions and with occupying soldiers.




- http://EndOccIRaq. org

researched reply.

What's really funny is you believe this

bullshit statement to be sincere.

Now,that's funny.

:woohoo:

K&R!!!

This'll be a great next debate question...

Consdering the Admin has said it does not PLAN on permanent bases in Iraq?

:applause: