THE NEVER ENDING OCCUPATION OF IRAQ-- PERMANENT BASES? DEFINE "PERMANENT"

On Friday Reuters reported that "Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country." The "provision" had been unanimously approved by both The House and The Senate to prohibit the Bush Regime from spending any of the $94.5 billion in the latest emergency spending bill from being used to establish any permanent bases in Iraq-- something the vast majority of both Iraqis and Americans who don't work directly for Bush agree on. In fact opposition to permanent U.S. bases (sitting, as they would, in the middle of the world's biggest supply of oil)-- the big dream for the neo-Cons who started this war-- unites Shia and Sunni and even Democrats and Republicans.

Tom Engelhardt pointed out-- 2 years ago-- how the Bush Regime twists and mangles the English language so excruciatingly that no one knows what anything means anymore. When the House and Senate voted unanimously on twin resolutions by Barbara Lee and Joe Biden that no appropriations go for permament U.S. bases, did some Republicans think that that didn't include the 4 "super bases" the U.S. has already built and is expanding?

Is there an argument over what "permanent" means? If Bush claims at some point that "permanent" means "until the Rapture or Armageddon" or whatever claptrap governs these fruitcakes lives, maybe he can wriggle out from under this-- at least in the minds of the 29% of Americans who still think believe he's doing a good job. This weekend the NY TIMES reported that Bush's highly-publicized "strategy session," which begins today, will put forward a plan to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "for decades to come." I guess there could be an argument about the meaning of "permanent" around that.

The TIMES story points out that 3 years of dismal failure in shoring up a legitimate government (in Iraq) and even getting the electricity going and purging the security forces of revenge-seeking militias have led to billions of wasted American dollars and the neo-Con U.S. Ambassador admitting that Baghdad is "more insecure now that it was a few months ago." And although Bush, weasel-like always, squirms out of talking directly about it in public, on Friday he "made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts."

Last February the WASHINGTON POST published an incredible story about the biggest of the 4 super bases, the one at Balad smack down in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Any member of Congress who is wondering if this is a permanent base or not should either go visit it or, at least read Tom Ricks' story. And Oliver Poole wrote about the al-Asad marine base for the TELEGRAPH. He says it "resembles a slice of US suburbia rather than the front line in a war zone."

Barbara Lee, the congresswoman from Oakland, went ballistic when she heard the Republicans had excised her provision in a Conference Committee-- in effect sneaking around in the dead of night to thwart the will of Congress-- and of the American people.

The House and Senate went on record opposing permanent bases, but now the Republicans are trying to sneak them back in in the middle of the night. The Republicans willingness to abuse the legislative process is clear evidence of their unwillingness to level with the American people about their plans for Iraq.

She is demanding an open debate on the floor of the House-- something the Republican leadership is afraid of, fearing the tissue of lies they have been handing their constituents about wanting to bring the troops home "as soon as possible" will be shown up for exactly what it is. Lee gets right to the heart of the matter: "The perception that the U.S. intends to occupy Iraq indefinitely is fueling the insurgency and making our troops more vulnerable. We need to make it perfectly clear that there will be no permanent US military presence in Iraq... If we are going to have a real debate on Iraq next week, it must explicitly address this question, and Republicans need to go on record as to whether they think we should stay in Iraq permanently."

So who were these Republicans sneaking around in the middle of the night taking the "no bases" provision out of the legislation? Well, some of the names you will recognize as among of the shadiest creatures we ever discuss here at DWT. Let's see, you've got GOP Crime Boss Jerry Lewis (CA) leading a pack of House crooks and nutcases like Charlie Taylor (NC), Ralph Regula (OH), Bill Young (FL), Henry Bonilla (TX), Joe Knollenberg (MI), and James Walsh (NY). And in the Senate, you should recognize the names of this batch of lying, cheating monstrosities: Conrad Burns (MT), Mitch McConnell (KY), Mike DeWine (OH), Sam Brownback (KS), Ted Stevens (AK), Thad Cochran (MS). Anyone would be hardpressed to find a batch of more dishonest and dishonorable men anywhere in the country. If you live in any of their states or districts, try to make a note for November-- for all of our sakes.