Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Why Is Ambassador Crocker Parsing His Words? No "Permanent" Bases -- Just "Enduring" Bases

Share
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 3:32pm.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

From the Institute for Public Accuracy:

AP is reporting this morning: "Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad ... said a long-term agreement the U.S. is now negotiating with Iraq will give a needed legal framework for the continued presence of U.S. troops. Many in Congress have raised alarm about the agreement, and Democrats have accused the White House of trying to set troop levels or other elements of the Bush policy in stone ahead of the U.S. presidential election."

Crocker said today: "The agreement will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and we anticipate that it will expressly foreswear them. The agreement will not specify troop levels, and it will not tie the hands of the next administration."

Catherine Lutz, professor of anthropology at Brown University and the Watson Institute for International Studies, is editor of the forthcoming book The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts.

She said today:

"To have Amb. Crocker or Gen. Petraeus say there will not be 'permanent bases' is entirely misleading. The U.S. government has taken to calling bases it intends to build and hold for the indefinite future 'enduring bases' or 'cooperative security locations' or other such euphemisms. The Bush administration is attempting to circumvent congressional Defense bills' provisions by characterizing any Iraq bases as 'temporary' or 'enduring' rather than 'permanent.' The administration appears determined to evade both the intent of the bill barring permanent bases as well as the democratic authority of Congress and the Iraqi Parliament -- not its Cabinet -- to approve what is de facto a basing treaty. Maintaining bases in Iraq is also a veiled way to prevent the withdrawal of U.S. forces against the wishes of large and growing majorities in both the United States and Iraq.

"The U.S. has over 700 official bases around the world, including, more than half a century after the end of World War II and the Korean War, 302 bases in Germany, 111 in Japan, and 106 in South Korea."

Catherine Lutz Bio (Brown University)

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

Now Let's be Accurate!

Submitted by Clemsy Diggs on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 10:37am.

Honestly! Words do have definitions, you know. No bases in iraq can be permanent. That would mean they will exist beyond the The Rapture, Second Coming, Tribulations and the opening of the Gates of Hell to consume all us lefty liberal demon spawn.

Those bases will not be necessary after that. Duh.

They will just have to endure until that time. No longer. Limited and finite NOT permanent.

»

Reviewing the Situation

Submitted by JohnHarris on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 1:47am.
Before we place too much trust in what we are to hear from representatives of this administration and this Senate, most of whom voted to authorize the invasion, let us recall the prophetic speech Sen. Byrd gave in opposition.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm

And let's recall how slow some of our leaders were to join the rest of us who knew better.

http://www.cnn.com/2006//POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/index.html

And, above all, let's keep in mind the plot that brought it about.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
»

Who Cares What They Call These Bases, After Nov. They're History

Submitted by crackerjack on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 9:42pm.
"Why is that?" "We'll have just elected a president who's going to end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "And then what sort of world?" "It'll be up to us."
»

Please tell when we ever

Submitted by sulphurdunn on Tue, 04/08/2008 - 5:22pm.
Please tell when we ever pulled out of anywhere before being kicked out.
»