Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PERMANENT BASES....This was buried on page A16 of the LA Times today:

House Passes Ban on Permanent Iraq Bases

Congress is on the verge of barring the construction of permanent bases for U.S. forces in Iraq, a move aimed at quelling concerns in the Arab world that American forces will remain in the war-torn country indefinitely.

....On Monday, House and Senate leaders agreed to insert a ban pushed by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware...."I have no illusions that this provision will somehow dramatically change the dynamic of events on the ground in Iraq," Biden said Tuesday in a statement. "But...this is a message that needs to be proclaimed loudly and regularly and with the stamp of the Congress."

It's about time. Good for Biden for proposing this, and good for him again for not pretending that it's going to seriously change the dynamics in Iraq at this late date. This is the kind of thing we should have been doing three years ago.

Kevin Drum 12:47 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Okay, but what's it matter? What's to stop them from making perpetual temporary bases?

Posted by: scarshapedstar on September 27, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

The House and Senate both passed this exact thing before, nearly unanimously if I recall correctly, and it was stripped out in conference by the Republicans while no one was looking.

Posted by: Balta on September 27, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

The way things are going now, can you say anything in Iraq is permanent?

Posted by: tomeck on September 27, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bush will just declare in a signing statement that bases that last only, say 200 years, aren't technically permanent.

Posted by: Nemo on September 27, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

10 to 1 this gets yanked under the premise of "leaving all options open."

Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack on September 27, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the Iraqi people ask for our permanent presence to protect from external threats (like Germany did after WWII), the Democrats are pre-emptively saying no?

It's nice to know they're doing everything they can to smother a fledgling democracy in its crib.

Posted by: American Hawk on September 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

So what? You have a president who is above the law. He'll just add a signing statement and go on his way to permanent occupation of Iraq.

Posted by: klyde on September 27, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the Iraqi people ask for our permanent presence to protect from external threats (like Germany did after WWII), the Democrats are pre-emptively saying no?

Someone hasn't been paying attention to Iraq.

Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack on September 27, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Nemo, anything lasting only 200 years ISN'T technically "permanent"

Good point Thomas1. Since the Sun will go supernova in several billion years, no bases can be permanent. In my opinion, anything short of a trillion years is not permanent.

Posted by: Al on September 27, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, but what's it matter? What's to stop them from making perpetual temporary bases?

Precisely. We're spending billions building "enduring bases" that have neighborhoods and restaurants and pools; we won't be abandoning these any time soon, nor the precious geographic location that Iraq provides for bases.

Even the conservative military guys who post here expect that we'll leave about 60,000 troops in Iraq in perpetuity.

Anticpating the Orwellian language by wingers and flingers, as long as we don't stay there until the end of time they're not "permanent" -- right?

Eh, as I preview I see a jackass has already thrown it out there.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

However you believe this war was spun, or for whatever reasons you believe the Bushies wanted it, building & holding permanent bases in Iraq was most likely at or near the top of their wish list.

For congressional leaders to support a U.S. base ban in Iraq tells me the bill has absolutely no teeth. Election year posturing and global PR pandering. Nothing more.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on September 27, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

dare we dream? Halliburton may not get to build those Crusader Castles they have the plans for? No Fair!

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 27, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Moot point. They're already built.

Nice song and dance, Joe. Meaningless, though.

Posted by: Stranger on September 27, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

However you believe this war was spun, or for whatever reasons you believe the Bushies wanted it, building & holding permanent bases in Iraq was most likely at or near the top of their wish list.

PNACers were saying this long before the war.

Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack on September 27, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, this is all election-year posturing. We have permanent bases in Iraq already.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 27, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the Iraqi people ask for our permanent presence to protect from external threats (like Germany did after WWII), the Democrats are pre-emptively saying no?

Er...remind me again who's in control of the House?

Posted by: Wonderin on September 27, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Well, we're already building by far the largest and most technically sophisticated American embassy ever built, so the idea of a permanent presence has already kinda dried in the concrete, as others have mentioned.

I still think it would be a good signal by Biden -- just to get the issue on the table and part of the debate. And the Iraqis need to hear that it has the imprimtur of congress, if we can get it.

If the Iraqis want to call bullshit -- then the debate will become even more meaningful.

What's the most bothersome is simply that nobody's discussing our long-term presence there at all. That's what needs to change.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

What is the definition of "Permanent"?

If we keep bases in Iraq for 5 months or 5 years or 5 decades or 5 centuries but we expect to pull out before the Y3K problem then the bases are temporary, right???

Posted by: neil wilson on September 27, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps we should name the complex, Fort Arwad.
Then, we could drop back to Cypress, then to Malta, and then.........

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 27, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

What if the legitimate elected government of Iraq wants us to have permanent bases there?

We are going to have a significant military force in Iraq (from 30000) for years to come- theirs no avoiding it. Certainly, as a matter of domestic politics our troops are not desirable long term to Iraqi sensibilities. Their foreign policy and military establishment may see the situation quite differently. (think Saudi Arabia).

Posted by: Fitz on September 27, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

That came up on Maher the other night. Sandy Rios (sp) said, of course! American soldiers paid for those bases with their lives!
What's that, phony reason # 217? Who's going to garrison those bases, Blackwater?

Posted by: Steve Paradis on September 27, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

This came up a couple of months back. The legislation is meaningless in terms of when troops will leave Iraq. The only real impact will be on the type of construction that is permitted in Iraq. DOD policy describe what is considered permanent versus temporary construction. So the only result is that soldiers will be housed and fed in modular-type facilities with little protection against incoming fire and higher maintenance costs because to build safer, more efficient concrete facilities is considered "permanent." This also applied to a broad range of support facilities (water and sanitation systems, office space, etc.

Congrats Biden for trying to ensure our soldiers are more exposed to harms way, even where the sleep and eat, so you can trumpet legislation that by your own admission will not "dramatically change the dynamic of events on the ground in Iraq."

Posted by: hacksaw on September 27, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

This is the kind of thing we should have been doing three years ago.

What, passing showy legislation that will be disregarded by the administration as it blatantly lies about its intentions? Kidding ourselves that this will comfort Iraqis because they can't tell the difference between Congressional dramatics and actual events on the ground?

Well, yeah, that's marginally better than what we did do three years ago.

Posted by: shortstop on September 27, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I just want to see a serious debate about it -- both here and in Iraq.

Obviously *this* administration has cotton in its ears -- but we need to be laying the spadework when some adults finally resume charge.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen: Futile it may ultimately have been, but you have to admit the Krak des Chevaliers is a pretty darn cool building. Think of our potential contribution to Middle Eastern historical architecture!

Posted by: S Ra on September 27, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's about time. Good for Biden for proposing this, and good for him again for not pretending that it's going to seriously change the dynamics in Iraq at this late date. This is the kind of thing we should have been doing three years ago. Kevin Drum

That horse was spilled under the bridge long ago. We're mostly finished with a massive permanent base near the Baghdad airport. Can anyone say "Camh Ranh Bay"?

Posted by: JeffII on September 27, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

The US House also passed a bill barring monetary awards for plaintiffs who win Establishment Clause lawsuits. That is, people who legitimately challenge the mixture of church & state should bear the legal costs, and the offending governments should be spared.

Luckily, the Senate doesn't appear to have any interest in the legislation.

Posted by: Grumpy on September 27, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, I suggest you try getting some sleep instead of hanging around Kevin's blog at midnight trying to uncover the AWFUL TRUTH, or whatever is going on inside your fevered mind.

Or is midnight the best time to stay up looking for black helicopters?

Posted by: Red on September 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII: That horse was spilled under the bridge long ago.

What the...?! Is this a Great Pacific Northwest expression? What the sam hill does it mean?

Posted by: shortstop on September 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Bob / rmck1:
Did you notice the other thread ARCHIVED at midnight last night?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 27, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. to Bob -- you weren't around at midnight (PACIFIC TIME) last night?
Posted by: Thomas1 on September 27, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1, I suggest you try getting some sleep instead of hanging around Kevin's blog at midnight trying to uncover the AWFUL TRUTH, or whatever is going on inside your fevered mind.
Or is midnight the best time to stay up looking for black helicopters?
Posted by: Red on September 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 changed his handle to RED in order to counterpost against Thomas1. Thomas1 has been dogging rmck1 for days.

Posted by: rmck1 Watch on September 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

To all on this thread:

This will be my only reference to the current idiocy going on. I will respond to nothing save issues and general banter. I will not respond to Thomas or any spoofer -- and you'll be able to tell them because everything they write will be irrelevant to the thread and designed to derail it by sucking me into a personal argument.

Just as a single note FYI. Please scroll the idiocy. Know I am not the perpetrator of any of it. I am confident that you all will.

Carry on,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

To think we aren't planning on being in Iraq for the long haul, is idiocy.

The untold billions spent and flung across that country were not meant to establish temporary bases or transitory Emerald Cities (like the Green Zone in central Bagdhad).

Face it. Regardless of how many troops come and go, American interests are firmly rooted in the oily sands of Iraq.

What we need to focus on is economics, forces more powerful (in the long run) than any transitory military activities.

It's not the soldiers anymore, it's the merchants that need the soldiers that we need to focus on. You know, those guys who are raking in the untold billions that have
been spent and flung across the vast desert country of Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on September 27, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

As per Washington Monthly's privacy guidelines, the Internet Protocol Addresses (IP) will not be published.

All name-based virtual hosts using the same IP address must share the same digital certificate. This is because the SSL/TLS handshake takes place before the hostname is sent to the server.

Posts with the following tag lines arrived from identical IP addresses:

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: Red on September 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: rmck1 Watch on September 27, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the Iraqi people ask for our permanent presence to protect from external threats...the Democrats are pre-emptively saying no?

Chickenshit, how do you even have enough brain cells to breathe? Do the math, "House and Senate leaders" would have to include a healthy dose of Publicans, no? Or else it would never get to the floor. That's OK, continue your endless whining about democrats, even though rightards have had unparalelled control for 4 years, and have just fucked everything up. But it's the dems fault.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on September 27, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

We're going to be in Iraq for what......a few more years until we have a hopefully new president.

Still Smoking Crack About Iraq.......who?

"If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.''

Boys need to get real.......

here

Posted by: avahome on September 27, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

That LA Times article said several liberalish California Democrats were against the house bill. I wonder why. Is there something else in the bill that makes it unpalatable? Do they expect Bush to issue a signing statement that negates the whole thing? (Well, probably yes, but that's the case with any bill, so he can get around them without a veto, and isn't a reason to vote against a good bill.) So why did they vote against it?

Posted by: anandine on September 27, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

anadine:

Didn't the LAT article give a reason? It might have been other things in the legislation. That would be my guess -- can you post a link to the article?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

I doubt very seriously that liberal California Democrats would be helping to further a GOP talking point.

Lieberman, maybe. But not likely for this group.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I noticed that too, anandine, and was confused by it. The LAT story even made a point to say that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) has tried before to "specifically prohibit" permanent bases. But she voted against the bill, and the story didn't elaborate why.

Posted by: Democratic Partier on September 27, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Bob makes a good point. You people should listen to Bob because you could learn a lot from him. Plus, he is very eloquent with the written word.

FYI, I'm a real person.

Posted by: Red on September 27, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

I have no problem responding to you on a topic issue. But the transparent sock puppet games you're playing with "Red" (like, heh, anybody here believes a commenter has access to Kevin's IP information) are another matter entirely.

And I curse myself for saying this much about it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

But, but....

We spend a billion dollars on our Iraq embassy AND another billion on our Iraq millitary Bases? For what - to impress big oil as if we would be there forever or at least until the oil ran out - and WHY is that oil company lawyer James Baker on that secert commission?

Who will guard the Iraqi oil, our economic security and save the Iraq oil ministry building from looters? If those neo-cons/PNAC members ever have a grassy knoll incident itll be a bitter oil barron or two behind it. The Bushies sure did sell western oil companies a bill of goods back when Cheney had that Iraqi clearing house close door energy task force session. The one that Justice Scalia got that all expense paid duck hunt trip just so he could rule in Cheney's favor.

You know, they did have maps on the table that divide Iraq's oilfeilds up for some strange reason, as if they knew we were going to go to war with Iraq all BEFORE 9/11 occurred - as if Bush willfully ignore that August 6th briefing AND then tried to lie and say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (see Richard Clarks transcript in the 9/11 commission) while all along it was al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Its not a failure of imagination when somebody tells the president that someone is determined to attack the US and Bush do nothing about it.

We need more stuff declassified.

Posted by: Cheryl on September 27, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

We need more stuff declassified.

I won't rant about Cheney's secret energy commission, I won't rant about Cheney's secret energy commission, I won't rant about Cheney's secret energy commission.

Okay, I probably will, I just won't do it here again. I try to keep my material fresh.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 27, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

building & holding permanent bases in Iraq was most likely at or near the top of their wish list.

Exactly -- just so we could get our bases out of Saudi Arabia.

At the risk of repeating myself:
"Mission Accomplised" -- Osama bin Laden

Who's the appeaser?

Posted by: mister pedantic on September 27, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I try to keep my material fresh.

Honey, it's not your fault the material's stale. They're the ones keeping the energy commission hush hush like their administration and the future of the entire GOP depends upon...oh, hey.

Posted by: shortstop on September 27, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Shortstop. Energy is kinda my thing since I decided I hate patients and bio-med research and turned my attention to climate sciences.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 27, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I've gotten used to the frustration of watching the political debates we actually have in this country, rather than the ones we ought to have.

This "permanent base issue" -- I mean really, its so dissapointing that the Democratic party can't really run with this one. Why, exactly, do we need these bases all over the world? In the context of the Post WWII cold war era, its understandable, at least it was basically understandable, although not always clear in a given instance.

Today, its is more and more clear to me that we are getting very little positive benefit from this world wide military presence we insist on maintaining.

Frankly, I don't by the fact that multinationals, specifically multi-national oil companies, are behind it. There is too much money being made by multinationals based in countries which do not insist on being th world's police force, and I don't buy one of the major underlying premises of "Syriana" either.

I mean, other than nuking the entire middle east, how much more damage could we have done to the perceived stability of Mid East oil than we have now?

The worst thing about this article is that it was such a "B" story and it only dealt with bases in Iraq.

If there was a true "liberal" media somewhere, the U.S. military policy would be front page news every damn day.

The coverage of the Middle East is really nothing more than sports reporting, with deaths and destruction tallies replacing touchdowns, home runs, and goals.

Posted by: hank on September 27, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

I guess this means its time for Bush to get out the ole signing statement pen again.

Posted by: j_ny on September 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Once again Tommieboy plagiarizes the words of others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

As someone who respects the property of others, I must say that this constant behavior of the tommie/charlie/cheney/sportie/GOP hydra is the most obnoxious of all his anti-social behaviors, and should be grounds for barring him from these comments -- if it were only possible.

Plagiarizing.... has anyone seen Ben Domenech lately? Perhaps the only job he can get after his ignominious downfall is moonlighting as a paid GOP blogtroll?

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

If wikipedia went away would Charlie cease to exist?

You'd think, given his misappropriation and over reliance on it.

But actually he'd just be stuck with flinging his feces and shrieking wildly.

His post above? No relevant analysis. It's beyond him. Cutting and pasting like a buffoon is all he's got.

Guess that's what happens when you can't make it in the real world. Aren't psychos always cutting and pasting from magazines to make threatening letters?

Posted by: Marsman... not on September 27, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

No, actually, Thomas, it was kinda funny :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I won't rant about Cheney's secret energy commission.

I'm sure you noticed, GC, how Cheney's claim that, if the attendees of the commission were even revealed -- let alone the discussions made public -- his ability to receive "frank advice" would be compromised, went totally unchallenged by the so-called "liberal media".

Let alone anyone asking, what kind of advice are you getting that you want to keep secret from the American public?

Cheney is a pustule on the American body politic.

Posted by: Gregory on September 27, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Question to the modern editorial boards of established Newspapers.

Given that the importance of a story buried on page A23 is obvious to the active community on the internet and will inevitably trumpeted despite its concealment, why not just short circuit the process and put news on the front page. Why force us to do your job for you? Sure there's a market of 70 somethings that won't go online who may be fooled by this. But I have to ask, with readership of the younger audience shrinking, and your futures looking dimmer and dimmer as print only media, why not serve the market that will pay for your longterm continued existence?

Posted by: patience on September 27, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy, I'd settle for you just cutting off your two keyboarding fingers.

But, hey, I'm flattered that you're keeping a record of my posts. I expect that they will find their way incorporated without credit into your future posts. I also expect that your sockpuppets will start cyberstalking me.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas:

That's, of course, a lie -- as any coverage on the issue of signing statements will attest.

Nobody's taken them remotely as far as Bush.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 27, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

signing statements started with President Monroe and that Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton all used then EXACTLY as is being complained of today.

Mmm, ya think? The country's top lawyers disagree:

BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS

http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html

Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the Bush Administration.

The task force report states, From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush ... has produced more than 800.

The report found that President Bushs signing statements are ritualistic, mechanical and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation. Even when [a] frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, this too was subjected to a ritual signing statement insisting on the Presidents authority to withhold information whenever he deemed it necessary.

This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy, said Greco. If left unchecked, the presidents practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.

Put on your raincoats people, here comes the feces.

Posted by: Doug M....not on September 27, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy, the only thing to note about you is that you are a thief, a liar, and a coward, and are not to be treated seriously or even respectfully on any level whatsoever.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.

Posted by: Thomas Paine on September 27, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bruce Fein, attorney and renowned legal scholar, told the committee that Bush has essentially given himself a line item veto power by declaring portions of new laws unconstitutional and offering his own revisions.

"These statements, which have multiplied logarithmically under President George W. Bush, flout the Constitution's checks and balances and separation of powers. They usurp legislative prerogatives and evade accountability," Fein said. "The President does not enjoy a constitutional option of unilaterally pronouncing a provision he has signed into law as unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it on that count."

Citing Bush's behavior as "alarming," Fein suggested that the President could be impeached for "political crime(s) against the Constitution."

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/06/ale06076.html

Posted by: Scott ...not on September 27, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

[a] frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, this too was subjected to a ritual signing statement insisting on the Presidents authority to withhold information whenever he deemed it necessary.

That's hilarious. The GOP congress was so upset about GWB ignoring the law, that they passed a law that merely instructed GWB to inform them when he was planning to ignor the law, and he proceded to ignor that law.

The GOP congress really must enjoy being bottoms.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy, please provide us an example of WJC using a signing statement to state that he would use torture whenever he wants even though he just signed a law outlawing torture.

Or just kill yourself.

Your choice.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't the LAT article give a reason? It might have been other things in the legislation. That would be my guess -- can you post a link to the article?

Bob

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bases27sep27,1,1122264.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

I couldn't find the link when I looked for it earlier.

It just says in the last paragraph that Filner, Stark, Waters, and Woolsey voted against it, with no reason given. Earlier in the article it syas Murtha and Lee (both Dems) have tried to do about the same thing before.

Posted by: anandine on September 27, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy is too stupid to distinguish declining to enforce an unconstitutional law, and actively breaking a constituional law.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

I just provided a similar Clinton signing statement.

No you didn't. You are a thief, a liar, and a coward. Please kill yourself. Your parents will enjoy having their basement back.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

We will leave Iraq when x=oil has become meaningless, and valueless, or has run out
+ 10 to 15 years so as to straighten the political situation out-after our decades long occupation. So the formula is we leave Iraq in L >=x+10 years(that's about 90 years or until we're broke which ever comes first.)

Posted by: Jim on September 27, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

I neglected to quote the first paragraph above.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy is too stupid to distinguish between speech and abortion, and thinks that speech he doesn't like is worse than torture.

Please abort yourself, and allow someone with the guts to fight for his convictions in Iraq to breath the air you are wasting on a worthless life.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Now tommieboy can't distinguish between homicide and suicide.

I expect that a some point the entire conceptual universe will collapse into a single point in Tommieboy's mind.

Better that he kill himself before that happens, in order to save the rest of us from being sucked into that mental blackhole.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

I just provided a similar Clinton signing statement.

Um, no, you dope.

The Clinton signing statement did not object on the basis of the President's authority to disregard any law he doesn't feel applies to him, which is the thinking for the majority of the Bush statements; it objected on the ground that it infringed on the rights of citizens.

Fail law school much?

The theory of the "unitary executive" is just that: a crackpot theory, like the theory that aliens built the pyramids, dreamed up by fascist goons to arrogate power to themselves.

Posted by: Ari ...not on September 27, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo and Thomas1 a perfect example of the present day Bitchery that plagues us even when things are looking rather dour. If you all keep this up, I say Bush sees to it another terrorist attack leaves him in power way past 2008, especially if Hillary happens to be the president elect by that time.

Posted by: Jim on September 27, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

"While Bush supporters speak glowingly of originalist interpretations of the Constitution, Bushs signing statements have far more in common with George III than with George Washington. The Constitution specifies that Congress shall make all laws and that presidents must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But Bushhis ego swollen by swarms of groveling intellectualshas embraced theories that convince him that the president alone may decree what shall be the law. "

"The American Conservative"
Posted by: Henry ...not on September 27, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Now I'm being blamed in advance for GWB's hypothetic future permanent dictatorship?

Gosh, I better stop kicking the asses of the paid blogtrolls....

...or else I'll just ignor this obvious attempt by the troll squad to lay off one of their members.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

"Throughout history, signing statements have been used to thank supporters, provide reasons for signing a bill or express satisfaction or displeasure with legislation passed by Congress. More recently, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have used signing statements to express constitutional and other objections to legislation, influence judicial interpretation and otherwise advance policy goals.

But the current president, George W. Bush, has further transformed the use of the presidential signing statement. On numerous occasions, he has used this mechanism to challenge or deny effect to legislation that he considers unconstitutional, but nonetheless signs. This is where we begin to tread into uncharted and, I believe, constitutionally dangerous territory."

Bob Barr
"The American Conservative Union"
Posted by: MRB...not on September 27, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Sure Thomas, I'll bet you a dollar Bush stays if Hillary is president elect. Are you sure you can cover your own spread?

Posted by: Jim on September 27, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

"There is nothing new about a president adding a "statement on signing" to legislation he has approved. Since the country was founded, presidents have used these statements for relatively innocuous purposes: to thank supporters, explain their support for the bill or express satisfaction--or dissatisfaction--with legislation passed by Congress.

What is new and troubling is the extraordinary frequency with which President Bush has used these statements, and the unorthodox way he uses them. The recent spate of presidential signing statements constitutes a threat to our country's system of checks and balances as surely as the Bush administration actions that the Hamdan ruling struck down did."

Cato Institute
Posted by: Janet...not on September 27, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

First Tommieboy commits plagiarism by posting a wikipedia excerpt as his own. Now he posts his own writing and claims that it is a wikipedia excerpt.

Really, dude. Kill yourself now. We can agree to call that infanticide, if you prefer.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Tommieboy, since you're on here 24/7 in various guises, I expect that the only break you'll ever receive will be when you kill yourself. Do it now. 72 virgins await.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's December 25 , 2006. President elect Hillary Clinton is preparing to assume power from outgoing lame-duck president GWB. Everyone is happy except the conservatives who are wondering how much of the money they managed to steal over the past eight years will have to be given back.
Suddenly there is a frightening terrorist attack on US soil. Many casualties. People are angry as all hell. Bush declares a state of emergency, claims that we are in imminent danger of another attack and declares martial law. Bush declares war on Iran, and then Syria. Putin warns him..China begins arming...surrounds Taiwan...etc,etc

Posted by: Jim on September 27, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

You edited wikipedia just to mimic your position? Do you really think that that constitutes evidence in favor of your point?

I guess that is to be expected from the master sockpuppeteer.

You are the most odious retarded fucker I've ever seen online. Please kill yourself.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

As you said, I can keep going about this 24/7 in various guises; as long as we aren't talking about "Permanent Bases" anymore, fine by me.

Finally the paid blogtroll admits his true nature.

My work here is done.

Kevin, I know that there is no chance you'll ever see this, but something has to be done about these paid shills.

Posted by: Disputo on September 27, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

You are the most odious retarded fucker I've ever seen online.

Disputo, I think you took that statement a little too far

I mean, you can't really see Charlie...you can only read the odious retarded crap he posts.

That sort of hyperbole doesn't help make your case, mister. But the rest of it was all true.

Posted by: Philip...not on September 27, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

No president I have seen so far reminds me of Adolf Hitler more than this guy GWB. A little jerk of a man who likes to get whipped. I bet Condi Rice has been using her whip behind the scenes. George Bush is a sadistic(sexualy masochistic) little jerk, exactly what Hitler was.

Posted by: Jim on September 27, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK
I can keep going about this 24/7 in various guises....Thomas1 at 9:06 PM
But all your aliases are equally banal, hypocritical, and disingenuous, i.e. lies. Too bad you haven't the courage to go to Iraq and comment from there, but chickiehawk cowards like you will never put you skin where your mouth is. Posted by: Mike on September 27, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Did Wikipedia cover Trollpostericide?

Posted by: stupid git on September 27, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Real estate listings san francisco bay area , homes for sale las vegas, mortgage interest rates, loan payment calculator and refinance. Comprehensive real estate and property listings. Includes information on buying, selling or renting a home, mortgage rates, home loans and refinance information. Plus free instant home valuation.

Posted by: mike on September 28, 2006 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

Beautiful wedding dresses, wedding bridal gowns, wedding gifts ideas, discount wedding favors, Wedding Supplies, Wedding Store, wedding planning... All you can get at Support my wedding com.

Posted by: Rose on September 28, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

The liklihood is 100% this will not be in the final bill that gets passed, even if it is in the Senate version. The GOP leadership House-Senate conference committee will remove it and put in some of their pork projects to replace it.

Posted by: Gary Denton on September 28, 2006 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK

宝贝计划下载 性爱图片 台湾18电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康图片 性教育电影 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线下载 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 电影夜宴网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 美女乳房 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 人体艺术摄影 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 免费电影下载 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情

Posted by: mmf铃声 on September 28, 2006 at 5:09 AM | PERMALINK

They may be banning permanent bases but what about semi-permanent bases?

Posted by: yank in london on September 28, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

We offer a variety of travel related services, including discount travel, travel guides, cheap alabama car insurance quotes,discount hotels in US, hotel chains, cheap airfare, and discount car rental.

Posted by: LL on September 28, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly