Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:03 PM
Original message
Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition
Edited on Sat Jun-10-06 10:03 PM by journalist3072
Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition

By Richard Cowan
Fri Jun 9, 4:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law.

As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.

A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."

Read entire article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060609/pl_nm/security_congress_funding_dc

Congratulations, everyone! We are on our way to making Iraq the 51st state!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wasn't that one of the main reasons for the invasion in the first place?
A permanent presence in Iraq, to keep an eye on the oil and be sure Halliburton had something to rebuild?

Not that I'm cynical or anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ding, ding! We have a winner.
Sadly, you are absolutely correct. So I guess Cindy Sheehan now has her answer. She knows what "noble" cause her Casey died for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC