Scher notes in his next post:Overlooked in the congressional cave-in to Dubya on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is that the final bill (H.R. 2206) kept in a flat ban on funding permanent bases:
SEC. 3301. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government 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 control over any oil resource of Iraq.
Yet it was only a day after Bush signed the bill into the law that the NY Times reported:
[Senior Bush administration officials] said the proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea.And when reporters asked WH Press Secretary Tony Snow if the "Korea" parallel means they're planning on staying for 50 years, he danced, saying that's "unanswerable" but "what I'm saying is you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support role."
From today's NY Times:
Administration officials and top military leaders declined to talk on the record about their long-term plans in Iraq. But when speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, they describe a fairly detailed concept. It calls for maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared. They would include the base at Al Asad in Anbar Province, Balad Air Base about 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Tallil Air Base in the south.Spending one single dollar on those bases is now against the law.
Congress, are you listening?
6 comments:
ohmigosh! I want to feel this was *brilliant*.
No timetables, sure, *but* with the idea that they can't have permanent bases...I feel like the anger of the left over the lack of timetables was a bit of a smokescreen.
I feel cautiously optimistic.
/checks self. I haven't felt cautiously optimistic in years. I'll hold on to sarcastically cynical for a bit more...
Very interesting.
I'd like to point out the "we're withholding funding because we said no permanent bases" is a lot stronger position than "we're witholding funding because there's no timetables."
If they play it right, Bush would be in the position of defending an occupation, and "hilarity would ensue" {TM}
This is good, very good, possibly excellent. *hopes*
Who knows whether Congress is listening though...
/looks for megaphone...
Post a Comment