About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

All Democrats Are On Record Against Permanent Bases (Next Issue, Please)

by: Mike Caulfield

Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:42:25 AM EDT


Just an update: We got Dodd on record against permanent bases the other day, and I'd mentioned there were documented quotes on the subject from everyone else except Obama (and noted that that probably had little to do with Obama, whose position against such neocon endeavors is pretty clear).

Liberal Oasis just emailed me and called my attention to this Daily Kos diary where the diarist states that Barack clearly said "no permanent bases" in the throng after the Keene event. It's not a recorded statement, or public in the way I'd like, but given that Obama also has a no peramanent bases clause in his de-escalation act (Sec. 4h), I think he's got the cred (again, h/t Liberal Oasis).

We can quibble over the wiggle room in what the candidates said, but the fact is the quotes from all are clear enough that they will have to defend any changes as reversals of stated policy.

Thanks much to Liberal Oasis for tracking this stuff. We were happy to put the  last puzzle piece in. As he mentions, statements like these are fudgeable, but they provide a beachead in to the larger discussion of whether we will continue the neocon vision of using bases in Iraq to leverage other Middle East change.

In general, I've been really interested in the phenomenon of birddogging this campaign. For what other questions could we birddog in the gaps?

Surplus Kudos to Obama Update: Just received two more Obama quotes, which show Obama not only opposes bases, but has been a leader in the past in forcing this question: (full Obama quotes under the fold, please click There's More to get the rest...)

Mike Caulfield :: All Democrats Are On Record Against Permanent Bases (Next Issue, Please)
From a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 2/15/06 - directed at Secretary Rice: "And the question is whether we can anticipate, given the direction that negotiations between the various factions in Iraq have been proceeding, whether or not such a phased withdrawal is advisable, would help send a signal to the Shias that we're not going to be here forever and that they need to negotiate with the Sunnis, and would start signalling to the Iraqi population that, in fact, we are not interested in permanent bases and a long-term occupation there."

To Khalilzad, in a Foreign Relations confirmation hearing on 6/7/05:

"after your confirmation and appearing before the Iraqi press, you will feel comfortable and confident when you say the United States has no intention to and will not set up permanent military installations in Iraq? That's a statement that you would feel confident making at this point?"

And of course the language in his De-Escalation Act of 2007 reaffirms a prohibition on permanent bases from John Warner's National Defense Authorization Act, as noted above.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yay! (0.00 / 0)
Since the election, the breeze of sanity running through Washington has cooled my New England neck.

A Republican acquaintance of mine once told me that the secret CIA prisons were a GOP asset. "Americans know Republicans will build those prisons, and Democrats won't." And no, he wasn't kidding.

That said, military bases and covert actions aren't really partisan issues, but Democrats at least (usually) approach them more rationally.


I'm Confused (0.00 / 0)
Weren't we just talking about how all the Democratic candidates support keeping troops in Iraq except for Richardson and Kucinich?

If we're going to dismantle the bases there, where will they be stationed? What will they be servicing, exactly?


Yeah, i looked into it (0.00 / 0)
Click the Liberal Oasis link above, it has quotes from all the candidates. Most went on record during the MoveOn town hall.



[ Parent ]
Dodd and Obama beign the exceptions, (0.00 / 0)
but we filled in those gaps.



[ Parent ]
Hmm, okay (0.00 / 0)
Elwood, can you speak to this?

[ Parent ]
Not in any enlightening way (4.00 / 1)
My take is:

  • Most of the candidates have talked about removing "combat troops"
  • They have not committed to either pulling out non-combat troops, or to keeping them in Iraq. They have simply not addressed the question
  • The "non-combat troops" would include both the military people staffing US bases in Iraq, and military people providing training to -- but not entering combat with -- Iraqi military and police forces
  • In addition to non-combat troops, there are more that a hundred thousand contractors paid for by the US in Iraq. The standard formulation of "withdraw the combat troops" doesn't address their future, either.

I suppose my take is: candidates who address Iraq policy in terms of what they will not do (e.g., leave troops in Iraq) will be plagued by ambiguity. The statements need to move on to what they will do (e.g., "Withdraw all US forces and contractors except a training force that will not see combat, of fewer than 30,000. Maintain a presence in a neighboring country (e.g. Kuwait) for up to 24 months.") I don't know if that is a credible policy, but that's the level of detail we will need to see before comparing candidates, IMHO.

Biden's suggested three-way split of Iraq may set the bar for specifics as the campaign progresses.


[ Parent ]
I like that 4th bullet point (0.00 / 0)
I haven't heard nearly enough about the 100,000+ 'private contractors' (mercenaries) we have over in Iraq.

Instead of hounding the candidates about their stance on the AUMF, maybe we should be asking them what they think about the overpaid, unaccountable mercenary force over in Iraq.


[ Parent ]
Next Issue: DOMA (4.00 / 1)
As I understand it: we have no federal standards for marriage except DOMA. If my state prohibits people under 16 from getting married but your state allows 15-year-olds to marry, the federal government simply follows the state law. The fifteen-year-old couple in my state can file a "married filing jointly" 1040 from your state, but from my state they cannot.

DOMA stands out as an intrusion on the principle of federalism (that's the term good progressives use instead of "state's rights").

With the states of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island*, and New Hampshire (knock wood) all giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage in their own borders, do you support repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act"?

* RI recognizes same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts



Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox