# Dems push Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetable; Bush threatens veto **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2007, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301 "2007-03-09T19:43:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/181 "2007-05-22T22:29:16Z")
What we need is the biggest goddam embassy complex anywhere in the world, for our new bestest friend forever, Iraq! They just love us half to death, over there, sometimes, all the way! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/182 "2007-05-22T22:36:58Z")
And I hope he gloats. He’s that dumb, he just might. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/183 "2007-05-22T22:38:14Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Are they still planning to build those bases? I haven’t heard anything about them since 2004 and I can’t seem to find anything by googling. [/QUOTE] Congress defunded that quite some time ago. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/184 "2007-05-22T23:11:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Congress defunded that quite some time ago. Um? As recently as last spring they were still [arguing about it](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0324-06.htm): > [@](#): > > [24 March 2006] > Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year [oops], the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces. > > Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money. > > Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding that the Pentagon explain its plans for the bases, and they unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for base agreements with the Iraqi government. […] > > [Rep. Ron] Paul, a critic of the war, is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill that would make it official policy not to maintain such bases in Iraq. […] > > State Department and Pentagon officials have insisted that the bases being constructed in Iraq will eventually be handed over to the Iraqi government. […] > > And Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, “We’re building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis.” […] > > All told, the United States has set up 110 forward operating bases in Iraq, and the Pentagon says about 34 of them already have been turned over to the Iraqi government, part of an ongoing effort to gradually strengthen Iraqi security forces. […] > > But despite the potential force reductions and the base handovers, the spending has continued. […] > > The bulk of the Pentagon’s emergency spending for military construction over the last three years in Iraq has focused on three or four large-scale air and logistics bases that dot the center of the country. > > The administration is seeking $348 million for base construction as part of its 2006 emergency war funding bill. The Senate has not yet acted on the request. > > By far the most funding has gone to a mammoth facility north of Baghdad in Balad, which includes an air base and a logistics center. The U.S. Central Command said it intended to use the base as the military’s primary hub in the region as it gradually hands off Baghdad airport to civilian authorities. > > Through the end last year, the administration spent about $230 million in emergency funds on the Balad base, and its new request includes $17.8 million for new roads that can accommodate hulking military vehicles and a 12.4-mile-long, 13-foot-high security fence. > > The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted in a report last year that many of the funds already spent, including for the facilities at Balad, suggested a longer-term U.S. presence. […] > > These large bases are being built at the same time that hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on separate bases for the growing Iraqi military. […] > > The big numbers have begun to cause consternation in congressional appropriations committees, which are demanding more accountability from Pentagon officials on military construction in the region. > > The House Appropriations Committee approved the president’s newest funding bill this month with a strongly worded warning. In a report accompanying the legislation, the committee noted that it had already approved about $1.3 billion in emergency spending for war-related construction, but that the recently declared “long war” on terrorism should allow more oversight of plans for bases in the region. > > It “has become clear in recent years that these expeditionary operations can result in substantial military construction expenditures of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases,” the committee reported. > > Rep. James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees military construction, said his panel was concerned that money the Pentagon was ostensibly seeking for short-term emergency needs actually was going to projects that were not urgent but long-term in nature. […] > > The Appropriations Committee also inserted a ban on spending any of the new money on facilities in Iraq until the U.S. Central Command submitted a master plan for bases in the region. Abizaid, in congressional testimony last week, said such a plan was in the process of getting final Pentagon approval for release to the committee. But he noted: “The master plan is fairly clear on everything except for Iraq and Afghanistan, which I don’t have policy guidance for long term.” > > Without such detail, it might prove impossible for congressional appropriators to get a firm idea of how the administration views the future of the U.S. presence on big bases in Iraq. Now as far as I can parse all this, it means that as of March 2006: 1. the military was still doing a lot of large-scale base construction in Iraq, and the Administration was still seeking (and obtaining) large-scale funding to support it; 2. the Administration was stating that the Iraq bases were not designed for permanent US occupation; 3. Congress forbade the use of funds for bargaining with the Iraqi government about base construction; 4. some Congresscritters sponsored a bill that would officially make it contrary to US policy to have permanent bases in Iraq (but I don’t know what happened to the bill subsequently); 5. Congress wants more information and oversight concerning base construction because they’re concerned that permanent base planning and construction may be going on clandestinely; 6. the House Appropriations Committee nixed any more spending on facilities construction in Iraq until they got more info on regional base planning; 7. the Pentagon was about to provide the Committee with the requested data on regional base planning, but it might not have contained detailed information on plans for Afghanistan and Iraq. Got all that? Yeah, me neither. ISTM that all we can say for certain is: Congress definitely doesn’t **want** to fund permanent military base construction for US forces in Iraq, but they are not entirely sure from the information provided by the military and the Administration whether they **are** funding it, and it is not entirely clear whether and how they’re going to be able to find out for certain. So I think the situation is more complicated, and more debatable, than your straightforward assertion about Congress having defunded permanent base construction in Iraq would suggest. Unless you have more recent detailed information that settles the question definitively? Because I freely admit that the whole thing looks to me like a fairly impenetrable political and bureaucratic can of worms where nobody’s really clear on exactly what is happening, or if they are, they aren’t telling. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/185 "2007-05-22T23:20:02Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] 5) Congress wants more information and oversight concerning base construction because they’re concerned that permanent base planning and construction may be going on clandestinely; . . . [/QUOTE] How do you build something that size “clandestinely”? You could do it in Siberia, I suppose, but not in a densely populated country like Iraq. Al-Jazeera, at least, will know about every base going up, from the groundbreaking. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/186 "2007-05-22T23:39:19Z")
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. It’s not the construction that’s clandestine, it’s the (possible) intention to retain the bases for permanent or long-term US military use instead of transferring them to the Iraqis in the near-term future. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2007, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/187 "2007-05-22T23:51:22Z")
Oh, swell. State of the art, top of the line military bases, built by us for use by AlQ and/or its Shia counterparts. Peachy. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/188 "2007-05-23T00:16:37Z")
From some searching, it would appear the 12 enduring bases is a concept that was scuttled some time in early 2005. I’m surprised this escaped by attention. It’s time for a learning opportunity, everyone! Now, instead of 12 “enduring bases” there are four “super bases” planned, with two of them already built – Al Asad Airbase and Balad Air Base. I recommend reading up on these – they’re basically **massive** Green Zones exported outside of Baghdad, or like a plopped down American city. From 2006 articles it appears Asad holds 17,000 troops, Balad 20,000. They have bus routes, town centers, theaters, business districts filled with fast food and electronic equipment stores… [Check this out.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611_pf.html) > [@](#): > > According to Yenter and others working on the plan, the four bases were chosen to enable U.S. forces to maintain a foothold in various regions of Iraq. Centered around airfields to facilitate resupply operations and troop mobility, the four are Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. > > Each base is being designed to hold a brigade-size combat team plus aviation units and other support personnel. **Initially referred to in planning documents as “enduring bases,” the term was changed in February to “contingency operating bases.”** > > “We didn’t want to pick places that are too near Iraqi population centers, but we did want ones that would still allow us to influence an area and give us some power projection capability,” said the general, who is involved in the planning and who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bolding mine. That made me chuckle. Contingency operating bases…has a nice ring to it. Some other stuff in the article is also sorta amusing, like where the official attempts to say that these longer lived bases are really part of the withdrawal plan. Well, it’s been two years and if anything it seems like we’re going in the opposite direction. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/189 "2007-05-23T00:41:31Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] It is what it is, the votes just weren’t there, not enough Pubbies have peeled away. [/quote] Bullshit. I mean, you’re right – there’s no way there’s going to be enough votes to over ride a veto. Like I said earlier, I also really doubt the GOP is going to see a mass defection in the magical month of September either. Maybe I’m wrong and the Dem leadership will blow us all away with their brilliant insight and planning. Maybe the Swedish bikini team’s bus will break down in front of my house. Anything is possible. My point is, you can’t just brush this off as the Dems not being able to do anything. The Dems fucked up big. They have a razor thin majority, yes, but there are options other than a complete rout in the face of “Mr. 28%.” They should’ve cut the retarded pork, added timelines and actual benchmarks and sent it to Bush. He’d veto it, of course. Send it back into his face again, and again, and again. Make a political spectacle out of this, force the issue in the media – why does Bush want to veto what the American people want? Why are the GOP Congress critters enabling him? They had time to work with this. There are other ideas out there too, but that’s my personal favorite. Then of course there’s having balls and just cutting funding, full stop. Doesn’t need the votes, just do nothing. No money, no war. But that’s only if things get desperate. But no. Nothing. No fight. They collapsed like a house of cards. What happens in September when we’re faced with this same situation and I’m right regarding the GOP’s resolve? I’m guessing KBR will be extremely pleased. If the Dems pull a miracle in September I’ll be the first to prostrate myself before Pelosi and Reid – well, after all the military families I suppose. If not, the Dems just bought the war. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/190 "2007-05-23T01:10:23Z")
From Sept, 2006: > [@](#): > > [Congress restricts Bush on Iraq spending](http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/29/congress_restricts_bush_on_iraq_spending/) > > The U.S. Congress moved on Friday to block the Bush administration from building permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or controlling the country’s oil sector, as it approved $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. > > \ > > The Senate unanimously passed the military spending bill, sending it to Bush for his signature. The House of Representatives passed it earlier in the week 394-22, as Congress rushed to leave town to campaign for November 7 elections that will determine control of Congress. > > Bush had complained the bill’s funding fell short of his request. But he issued a statement saying he would sign the legislation that “will provide our men and women in uniform with the necessary resources to protect our country and win the War on Terror.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/191 "2007-05-23T02:06:57Z")
But **John** , what does that tell us that we didn’t know before? Where are the actual provisions for Congressional oversight for base planning or construction to make sure the bases won’t be permanent, or the actual denial of funding for continuing construction? AFAICT, all your link tells us is that “lawmakers have called on President George W. Bush to make a definitive statement that the United States has no such plans [for permanent military bases]”. We already knew that Congress doesn’t **want** to be funding permanent bases in Iraq. We seem to be no closer than we were before to determining whether Congress actually **is** funding permanent bases in Iraq, or how they can investigate or oversee the base-planning issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/192 "2007-05-23T03:36:00Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] But **John** , what does that tell us that we didn’t know before? Where are the actual provisions for Congressional oversight for base planning or construction to make sure the bases won’t be permanent, or the actual denial of funding for continuing construction? [/QUOTE] Maybe I should have included the 2nd paragraph, too: > [@](#): > > The restrictions included in a record $447 billion military funding bill were a slap at the administration, and Republicans have stripped them out of legislation in the past. The restrictions = no funds for permanent bases. All I said above, which you seemed to object to, was that Congress defunded them. But the simple fact is that these bases are Bush’s baby, and if he wants to finagle some funds for them he probably can. But he can’t make them “permanent” once he leaves office, and he seems to be the only one who wants them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/193 "2007-05-23T03:57:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The restrictions = no funds for permanent bases. How do we know? I already read the second paragraph in your linked article, and I still don’t see in it any specific claim about whether or how Congress is obtaining any effective oversight of base planning or any effective denial of funds for base constructions. As far as I can see from the article, the “restrictions” in question consist of nothing more than Congress saying to Bush “We want you to tell us what your plans are for bases in Iraq! In the meantime, here’s some more money.” > [@John Mace](#): > > All I said above, which you seemed to object to, was that Congress defunded them. Well, you said that in response to **BG** ’s question “Are they still planning to build those bases?” Which seemed to imply (although perhaps it wasn’t what you meant) that you thought that Congress had actually taken some action to effectively prevent the continuation of their construction. Which I don’t think has yet been convincingly demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/194 "2007-05-23T04:03:09Z")
Easiest thing in the world. Just pass some money for military assistance to Iraq, and use the money to build permanent Iraqi bases. Then bribe the Iraqis to lease “their” bases to the US. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/195 "2007-05-23T05:00:58Z")
Like I posted upthread, there are already two city sized bases, even built like cities, which hold a total of ~40,000 troops combined. They have a substantial price tag, far beyond most other bases that dot the country. They’re built to last. I was wondering about about the other two planned super bases of Tallil in the south and the northern base in either Irbil or Qayyarah. From what I can find the northern deal didn’t go through and the Tallil operation has been stunted greatly, although it is still quite sizable. So I guess that’s good. [This](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0324-06.htm) 2006 article makes for an interesting read. It also has some information on the bases slated for upgrade at the bottom, two being the superbases at Al Asad and Balad. > [@](#): > > Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said on Iraqi television last week that the U.S. had “no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.” > > And Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, “We’re building permanent bases in Iraq for Iraqis.” Hey, maybe they’re right! This is all just a big misunderstanding, really. But isn’t it a permanent base if, you know, we never actually leave and hand over the keys? How do we leave when the Dems roll over and show their belly? How do we leave when the MSM stands firm? How do we leave when 30% of the country thinks everything is swell? How do we leave when the military-industrial complex that Ike warned us about has its tentacles all inside of Congress? Ugh. I could take the news of the Dems collapsing. I could take the news of us going through a second escalation okay too. But both, together, in a single day, makes me woozy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/196 "2007-05-23T06:28:01Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] How do we know? I already read the second paragraph in your linked article, and I still don’t see in it any specific claim about whether or how Congress is obtaining any effective oversight of base planning or any effective denial of funds for base constructions. As far as I can see from the article, the “restrictions” in question consist of nothing more than Congress saying to Bush “We want you to tell us what your plans are for bases in Iraq! In the meantime, here’s some more money.” Well, you said that in response to **BG** ’s question “Are they still planning to build those bases?” Which seemed to imply (although perhaps it wasn’t what you meant) that you thought that Congress had actually taken some action to effectively prevent the continuation of their construction. Which I don’t think has yet been convincingly demonstrated. [/QUOTE] Look, Bush can call them anything he wants. He can call them the W Memorial Eternal Bases, but once he leaves office all bets are off. It’s crystal clear that no one in Congress wants these bases, so what’s the point? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/197 "2007-05-23T06:53:10Z")
Well, I **thought** the point was to try to figure out whether “they are still planning to build those bases”. I mean, that was the question that **BrainGlutton** asked. You seem to be saying instead that even if the current Administration is still committed to enduring bases in Iraq, it’s irrelevant because in practical terms, they won’t “endure” past 2008. Which may well be true, but is not quite the same issue. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/198 "2007-05-23T07:04:41Z")
Shit, just with the money gone missing, they could build an exact replica of Salt Lake City, complete with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! What are we talking, a few billion here? Couch change. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/199 "2007-05-23T14:05:52Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Well, I **thought** the point was to try to figure out whether “they are still planning to build those bases”. I mean, that was the question that **BrainGlutton** asked. You seem to be saying instead that even if the current Administration is still committed to enduring bases in Iraq, it’s irrelevant because in practical terms, they won’t “endure” past 2008. Which may well be true, but is not quite the same issue. [/QUOTE] He also asked if there was any update and said he hadn’t heard anything since 2004. That was an update from 2006. I’d say it’s misleading, at best, to say that Bush is building permanent bases in Iraq. He’s building bases, and maybe he thinks they’re permanent, but no one in Congress thinks they are. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301/200 "2007-05-23T15:17:58Z")
One other thing to keep in mind: A person is being hopelessly naive if he or she thinks we are not going to have a substantial troop presence in Iraq for some time after Bush leaves office. I would be shocked if the next president, even if (s)he is a Democrat, gets us out of there completely during his/her first term in office. We don’t need (and shouldn’t want) “permanent” bases in Iraq, but we do need bases that we can use for quite some time. That is the sad truth of the matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dems-push-iraq-funding-bill-with-withdrawal-timetable-bush-threatens-veto/395301.md?page=11)