"Gosh": Allen fine with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever

By: Rob
Published On: 7/13/2006 12:50:22 PM

The title of this Virginia Pilot article nails the contrast between Allen and Webb:

Bright line on Iraq for Webb and Allen

The bright line is over a long-term presense in Iraq for American troops:


George Allen sees a long-term future for the United States in Iraq, complete with military bases.
"If the Iraqis ultimately are taking control of their own country, which they are trying to do and standing up for this fledgling government, and they say, 'Gosh, we still need the U.S. there in some presence,' then we should consider accommodating them," Allen said....

Gosh, Senator!  Glad you're so flippant about keeping our troops in Iraq forever.

And the other side of the bright line, where we find Jim Webb:

If there was any doubt how far apart Allen and challenger Jim Webb stand on the war in Iraq, it was settled over the weekend at a suburban Richmond hotel.

"President Bush has said future presidents - plural - will be dealing with the Iraqi situation. I think we can be out of Iraq in two years," Webb said, after criticizing the notion of long-term bases as looking a bit too much like occupation for a part of the world distrustful of U.S. long-term designs.

No kidding!  Would anyone trust the U.S. on it military efforts if it set up permanent bases in a country the President promised to "leave" when "our work is done"? 

So, among the many reasons to fire George Allen, this could be the biggest.  A complete failure to appreciate the gravity and effects of a permanent presense in Iraq.   How could he be supportive of a permanent presense in Iraq - given the message it would send the world and the effects on our war weary and stretched military?

And, remember, this guy also wants to be our next Commander in Chief!  God help us.

[UPDATE: Have we found another Allen flip-flop? I'll investigate in the extended entry...]
Apparently, the Senate recently passed a bill that prohibited this very thing:

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a $517.7 billion defense bill for fiscal year 2007 that includes $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Passed on June 23, the bill, which also includes a 2.2 percent payraise for troops, will have to be reconciled with the House of Representatives' $427.6 billion military budget passed Tuesday that also includes $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government's fiscal year 2007 starts October 1....

The Senate passed by voice vote an amendment by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden that would ban establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and prevent the United States from controlling Iraq's crude oil resources.

While the voice vote prevents any official record of Allen's position on the amendment, he did vote for its ultimate passage as part of the overall appropriations bill.

So, he voted for a ban on permanent bases in Iraq but is also fine with permanent bases in Iraq?  Looks like we've caught Allen on both sides of the issue!  Decisive on matters of war? Not so much.

Note: despite being passed by both the House and Senate, the ban was removed by the joint conference of the two legislative bodies that attempted to reconcile the two bills.  I wonder if Allen supported and opposed that procedural trick as well?

Comments



Gosh, did Allen forget (kevinceckowski - 7/13/2006 1:10:40 PM)
about Senator Biden's work and the Senate Amendment barring permanent bases in Iraq? Is Allen using a secret Veto power or ear-mark or whatever they are calling it today to avoid this issue?

Was he even in town that day?  Did he even know about it?  And he wants to continue to be our Senator in Virginia. Give me a break!!

http://www.clw.org/2006/05/victory_in_sena_1.html



but... (Rob - 7/13/2006 1:36:47 PM)
wasn't that amendment stripped out in conference?

I'm interested in how Allen voted on that amendment.  He did vote YES on its eventual passage in the defense appropriations bill, so officially he's on both sides of this issue, isn't  he?



I don't think so (kevinceckowski - 7/13/2006 1:55:06 PM)
I believe much was said, but it held.  Don't know how Allen voted, looking into it, but my guess is he did not like it much.  kc

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1933&issue_id=35

Iraq: Senate Bars Permanent Bases, AgainPrinter-Friendly Page 

Updated: 6/23/2006 Posted: 6/23/2006

We are in the middle of a long legislative struggle to persuade Congress to change the course of U.S. policy in Iraq. But the Senate decision Thursday night, June 22, to reinstate the ban on permanent U.S. military bases and the news from Iraq that the new government is developing a strategy for reconciliation that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops provide us reason for hope. Here’s what’s happening:

 



Check out my update (Rob - 7/13/2006 2:03:43 PM)


Super (kevinceckowski - 7/13/2006 2:22:37 PM)
...but still checking, I still think it made it through.
Not a researcher, but am damn curious now.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/06-06-06FY06Hurricane&WarSuppConference.mht

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

1. [109th] S.AMDT.3717 to H.R.4939 To provide that none of the funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 4/27/2006)  Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3717 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. [109th] S.AMDT.3855 to H.R.4939 To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 5/2/2006)  Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/3/2006 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3855 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.



FlipperFelix (kevinceckowski - 7/13/2006 2:28:41 PM)
Will this name stick!  Do we know if he voted for it or not?

How could he keep troops on permanent bases that are not going to be funded by the US? Has that ever happened before? Is Allen a tad bit confused?  kc



Biden Speaks! (kevinceckowski - 7/13/2006 2:47:20 PM)
It looks like it was a voice vote, like the side who makes the loudest noise wins, and it looks like Biden won. Nothing recorded that I can find thus far, like who voted how.  They were actually going to do it, but stopped. See below.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109d39FpB:e112311:

Mr. BIDEN. I apologize. I have been misinformed. I must call up, first, amendment No. 3717, and second degree that amendment with amendment No. 3855. That is my unanimous consent request.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend from Mississippi.

  I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment numbered 3717.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq)
  On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

  PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES IN IRAQ

  Sec. 7032. None of the funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  AMENDMENT NO. 3855 TO AMENDMENT NO. 3717

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree Biden amendment.

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment numbered 3855 to amendment No. 3717.

  The amendment is as follows:

  In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:

  On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

  Prohibition on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes in Iraq



I've never heard an Iraqi say "Gosh". (RayH - 7/13/2006 1:17:59 PM)


Gosh and Double Gosh (K - 7/13/2006 1:23:28 PM)
In his heart of hearts, Allen wouldn't have a problem spittin' his damned 'baccy juice all over the troops, it that would be to his advantage.



Iraq; deciphered for Bubba's (Bubby - 7/13/2006 1:27:31 PM)
Lookit, Iraq is having a civil war. Even worse than THE Civil War (Iraqis have religion wrapped up in it).

So suppose that during our own War of Northern Aggression, the duly elected Confederate government had convinced Great Britain to invade the US, occupy the country and set to building permanent Forts? 

That would have been good for the Confederacy. But how do you think the folks living in the Green Zone on DuPont Circle would have felt about it?  What about the good citizens of Franklin now subjected to abolitionist British viceroys bent on curbing the "excesses" of shine-drinking locals?  Forward Operating Base "Ulster" in Winchester?  I don't think so.

And how would occupation have helped the resolution of the conflict and re-unification?  Maybe the North would have given up and surrendered? You think so?  I don't either.

Its like that in Iraq.