Posted on 07/25/2007 3:36:49 PM PDT by bnelson44
The House approved legislation Wednesday preventing the Pentagon from establishing any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
The legislation would bar the federal government from controlling any of that country's oil resources.
Democratic leaders scheduled a vote on the measure, which was introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), as part of a concession to some of their liberal members who have been clamoring to de-fund the war.
"It makes a clear statement of policy that the U.S. does not intend to maintain an open ended military presence in Iraq and that we won't exercise control over Iraqi oil," Lee said in a statement afterward. "The perception that the United States plans to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq strengthens the insurgency, and it fuels the violence against our troops."
House members passed the measure, 399-24.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If al Qaeda blows up the oil wells and sobotages the pipelines these same idiots will be grandstanding about how we failed to secure them.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Just for show...
One would think the Iraqis would have a say in the base/no base think, eh, Ms. Jackson?
This attempt to play up to their kooks won’t make through the Senate
House members passed the measure, 399-24.
Looks like our kooks are in on this one too.
You have to go back to the 1970’s to find a U.S. Congress as radical and as dangerous to U.S. interests as this one.
wtf?
The Bill passed with an overwhelmingly veto proof majority.
Idiots.
we certaninly wouldn’t want to “control” any one’s oil,
now would we? /s
the democraps are against the wot, against drilling in alaska, against oil shale, against coal generation, against drilling off the coast of calif, against drilling off the gulf coast, against gas wells in new mexico, etc.
meanwhile, democraps travel the world, leaving no stone unturned, using—oil.
Roll Call is here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll717.xml
I don’t think it is a bad measure. We have not intention of nationalizing Iraqi oil and we have no intention of staying forever in Iraq. It is about time we made it formal so the rest of the world knows it.
Even for Democrats this is pretty stupid. Being in a position to maintain some degree of control in the region is a bit on the important side as far as world energy needs are concerned. Or do the Democrats plan to start letting us drill at home?
HR 2929 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 28, 2007
Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. ALLEN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, and Ms. WATERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On May 30, 2007, Tony Snow, the President’s press secretary, said that President Bush envisions a United States military presence in Iraq `as we have in South Korea’, where American troops have been stationed for more than 50 years.
(2) On June 1, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates elaborated on the President’s idea of a `long and enduring presence’ in Iraq, of which the `Korea model’ is one example.
(3) These statements run counter to previous statements issued by the President and other administration officials.
(4) On April 13, 2004, the President said, `As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.’.
(5) On February 6, 2007, Secretary Robert Gates stated in testimony before Congress, `we certainly have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq.’.
(6) On February 16, 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in testimony before Congress, `We have no desire to have our forces permanently in that country. We have no plans or discussions underway to have permanent bases in that country.’.
(7) On March 24, 2006, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Kahilzad stated that the United States has `no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.’.
(8) On October 25, 2006, the President stated, `Any decisions on permanency in Iraq will be made by the Iraqi government.’, in response to a question whether the United States wanted to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq.
(9) On February 6, 2007, Secretary Gates said, `We will make that decision, sir’ in response to the question: `Is that still our policy, that we’re going to be there [Iraq] as long as the [Iraqi] government asks us to be there? ... Is our presence left up to the Iraqis or do we make the decision?’.
(10) The perception that the United States intends to permanently occupy Iraq aids insurgent groups in recruiting supporters and fuels violent activity.
(11) A clear statement that the United States does not seek a long-term or permanent presence in Iraq would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States fully supports the efforts of the Iraqi people to exercise full national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.
(12) 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.’.
(13) The House of Representatives has passed 6 separate bills prohibiting or expressing opposition to the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq including three of which have been enacted into law by the President: Public Law 109-289, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 110-28.
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.
This is satire, right?
To try, convict, and shoot traitors.
True...the definition of permanence is always up for debate.
Considering Ramstien in Germany, our bases in Okinawa, and Incirlik AFB in Turkey, etc...are not considered “permanent”.
We are neither colonialists or occupiers, so, this measure is toothless, which is probably why our “kooks” voted for it.
Read the comments...the leftists kooks seem to be pleased for all the wrong reasons...hahahahaha...one idiot moonbat compares US foreign policy to neocolonialism...I suggest that moron look up the term before using it.
No just one of those bills that don’t mean much. We will temporarily fund troops in Iraq for 50 years just like we are doing in a number of other places in the world.
Doesn’t the bill have to go to the Senate next?
Is this the same Barbara Lee that has sponsored 139 bills since Jan 7,1997,of which 119 haven’t made it out of committee?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.