House votes to ban permanent U.S. bases in Iraq

From The Gavel:

Will this pass the Senate? Will the Pubs filibuster?

If so, will the Admin dare to veto it?

If it passes, do we have to give up that enormous fortified embassy too?

I doubt it, I expect so, and they’d dare anything. Assuming that they don’t just decide to ignore what Congress says.

He’ll probably sign the bill, and attach a signing statement nullifying what the bill says.

It’s silliness. According to John Boehner, that’s been the policy all along.

So basically, this bill just affirms what is being planned anyway.

But it has simultaneously been policy to plan for a long-term American military presence as in South Korea. This bill is meant to block that.

Perhaps the old saying should now be “Trust, but legislate”.

I’m with you on that.

I think it will pass the Senate-- after all, it needed a 2/3 majority to pass the House, and got more than that. And a veto would make no sense if it was passed with a 2/3 majority, because that’s all that’s required to override a veto.

Let’s look at the text of the House-passed bill:

Now let’s look at the war funding bill signed by Bush in May:

It’s a very good law. It’s also already on the books. How many times does it have to be passed?

Never mind.

Ooh! Wonder if W read that part?! :slight_smile:

Well, then, he has no excuse for vetoing this reaffirmation of same, does he?

According to ivylass’s link:

Members of the administration have already suggested that American forces will be involved with Iraq for fifty years. From a practical standpoint, that might as well be permanent. Odd that Tony Snow would claim that White House supports something that they’ve already debated violating.

In another 18 months this administration will no longer exist. So, at most, they can support bases in Iraq lasting 18 months. The can say 50 years all they want, but that’s absolutely meaningless unless the next 10 or so administrations agree. Somehow, I’m having difficulty getting worked up about this issue.

Unfortunately, the next Administration might agree, especially if it is Republican. So we might keep a troop presence in Iraq for another 5-1/2 years at least, unless Congress makes very clear that is not an option.

I would bet money that we will still have troops in Iraq 5 1/2 years hence, no matter which party wins the WH in '08. But the language in that bill is ludicrous. All anyone has to do is say that the bases aren’t meant to be permanent.

I believe the only rational explanation for this bill is to send a message to the Iraqis themselves that it is not our intent to have a permanent presence in Iraq. However, I don’t see that it will affect policy one way or another.

Are our bases in South Korea and Germany and South America considered “permanent”? I mean, they won’t be around when the sun goes red giant, so…