House Rejects Permanent Iraq Bases

[Happy Hippo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26cong.html

399-24

I like it.

NAY voters:

Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
John Campbell (R-CA)
Wally Herger (R-CA)
Jeff Miller (R-FL)
Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
John Linder (R-GA)
Steve King (R-IA)
William Sali (R-ID)
J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Richard Baker (R-LA)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
Bob Inglis (R-SC)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Joe Barton (R-TX)
Kevin Brady (R-TX)
Michael Burgess (R-TX)
William Thornberry (R-TX)
Chris Cannon (R-UT)



So can someone (R-MJ) please explain to me what possible reason these people could have for voting NAY?

 

[Blitz]

that's 23 who was 24th?

 

[Happy Hippo]

that's 23 who was 24th?

Michael Turner (R-OH)

 

[djv]

We don't need two. Our new embassy is on 170 acres. Cost to build over billion for all buldings. Will be able to house over 5000 troops. At least that's wher it started at. By now im sure it's bigger.

 

[bjfinste]

Michael Turner (R-OH)

He must be sick of sitting behind LT on the bench and is trying to get some publicity.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

BJ:

Shouldn't that be: Michael Turner (RB-SD)

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Don't know about them HH but I would like certainly having permanant base.

The same as I like having one in Kuwaiit-

Considering the middle east is the proverbial hot spot of the future I'll take a permanat base in any country in that area that will let me.

Sure makes logistics simpler if need to invade country occurs--might be why it took only days to defeat Taliban and Saddams regime--you think?

 

[gardenweasel]

you have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull that 23/24 stuff off on blitz.....

 

[Jabberwocky]

"Sure makes logistics simpler if need to invade country occurs--might be why it took only days to defeat Taliban and Saddams regime--you think?"

Saddam's regime has been defeated? And the Taliban? What a relief. Now we can leave Iraq a free a peaceful nation and we don't have to worry about the Taliban anymore.

 

[The Sponge]

The single biggest reason we were attacked is because our govt can't stay out of others lives and of course us putting bases on the Muslims holy land. It really doesn't surprise me that DTB thinks this is a wonderful idea. I wonder how he would feel if the terrorist could build a base in Kentucky? I wonder how he would feel if they could flood about a hundred thousand fighters all over Kentucky just patrolling the streets?

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

I can't believe that we would waste the last 5 years and have Americans killed to leave without setting up a base.

We need to have at least the threat of a response if the shit hits the fan or if/when some dictatorship tries to run over our new-found "brothers in democracy."

It's really the only responsible thing to do.

 

[Jabberwocky]

A military base. Yep. Thats what we need to beat this insurgency. A base of operations. Then we can bunker in, and wait these extremists out. Oh yeah, and another surge. One more surge should do it. And maybe another base.

 

[Happy Hippo]

Like djv pointed out, isn't the U.S. embassy in Iraq (the largest embassy in the world), enough already?

I have to agree with Spongy here also. Setting up more permanent bases there lends credence to foreigners' perception of us as the "world's police".

Unfortunately bad things happen everywhere. If we are going to set up permanent bases in Iraq to control their democracy (which somehow sounds really hypocritical), then don't we also need to set up "control" bases in every country that is unstable?

I think not setting up permanent bases sends a good message to the people in Iraq that we are not just interested in controlling them and their oil (although the embassy itself is questionable). How would we react if another country built the largest embassy in the world here and permanent military bases to make sure we maintain our democracy...yeah right!!

 

[The Sponge]

This coming out of the mouth of a real conservative.

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.


We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases.
What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

How far fetched would this would be--

Don't think anyone under estimates Rove--most of his poitical stratagey comes from history--

What has hstory taught us in similiar situation with Truman and Korea-- People got fed up up with long war--and dealt Truman as noted in other post a worse rating than GW--in addition the the Rebs took over congress mid term as result--War end he came up with Marshal plan and went down in history as one of our greatest presidents--In fact all of Europe owes us.

What if after Sept GW announces that the upsurge got the job done(whether it did or not)--and in 08 he will adopt the Baker Hamilton bi-partisan plan--which is reducing troop level/pulling troops out of line of fire and for support and training only.

Wonder how the Dems would explain their war is lost/retreat position come Nov 08?

 

[djv]

Are you kidding. Dem's would say Bush woke up and found out we had won three years ago. No loss at all.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DJV You would be naive to think the Dems wouldn't fight the Baker/Hamilton plan.

Your Daily Kos-Moveon crowd will have nothing but absolute retreat--and if you can't see who pulls the strings on the party you've had your eyes closed.

Will give Hilliary an exception--she is smart enough to know it will be the moderates that dictate election--and doesn't need the funding from the far left which Obama and Edwards would wilt without.

Would consider her the only candidate with possibilty of winning in 08.