Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No Permanent Bases: Passed Both Houses, Removed in Conference Committee

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 » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:58 AM
Original message
No Permanent Bases: Passed Both Houses, Removed in Conference Committee
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060609_no_permanent_bases_3a_.htm

No Permanent Bases: Passed Both Houses, Removed in Conference Committee


By David Swanson

When the House and the Senate pass similar but not identical bills, they create a conference committee to work out the differences. When they both passed amendments to the "emergency supplemental" spending bill stipulating that none of the money could be used to build permanent bases in Iraq, the conference committee, behind closed doors this week, resolved that non-difference by deleting it.

This would appear to be a blatant violation of the rules of Congress and an unconstitutional voiding of the will of the people as expressed by their Representatives and Senators. But it can't appear that way to a people that knows nothing about it. And it does not appear that way at all to the journalists who inform the public of its government's doings. Even the minority members of the conference committee and the leaders of the minority party in Congress seem entirely comfortable with this course of events, although Congresswoman Barbara Lee has denounced the Republicans for it.

The House was the first to pass the "no permanent bases" amendment, back in March. Only one media outlet in the nation reported on the matter, the San Francisco Chronicle, which wrote:

"Lee's amendment, which would bar the use of any funds in the new spending bill to establish permanent bases, passed on a voice vote, with no one speaking in opposition. President Bush and some top administration officials have said the U.S. military has no interest in permanent bases, the prospect of which is among the causes of anti-American unrest in Iraq. Leaders of the Republican majority also may have chosen to avoid a debate and recorded vote on Lee's proposal because they didn't want to go on record endorsing a permanent military presence in Iraq when polls show Americans oppose the war. Opponents also may try to strike the amendment when leaders of the House and Senate reconcile their bill for final passage. 'In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops' backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq,' Lee said on the House floor."
In response to this, I wrote at the time:
"That's quite a story: an issue so touchy that the majority party goes against its own wishes in order to avoid going on record, and a reporter, with his editor's approval, anticipates that they will likely reverse that position behind closed doors. Won't that be an even bigger story! Well, no. Not if no one has heard about this one. And not if no one has even heard that bases are being built or that Iraqis are killing Americans because of it."
Then the Senate did the same thing. They passed "no permanent bases" on a voice vote with no opposition. And the media was silent. Everyone knew what was coming, but nobody felt the public should hear about it.
Now the newspapers are full of stories about things the conference committee did yesterday. None of the stories that I've seen mention the removal of the language about permanent bases. Instead, most of the articles focus on the idea that the conference committee saw its job as reducing spending. It stripped out money for American farmers and other useful spending.
But what would those farmers think if they knew the committee had spent their money on multi-billion-dollar permanent military bases in somebody else's country, bases never explicitly authorized by Congress, bases built as part of an ongoing occupation never authorized by Congress? Would the farmers be dangerously overcome with joy to learn that? Is that the reason they must not be told?
If nobody knows and nobody cares, I guess it can't be treason.
Here are two people who would be interested to hear your opinion on the topic: Senator Thad Cochran (202-224-5054) and Congressman Jerry Lewis (202-225-5861), the pair of Republicans in charge of the conference committee. Feel free to give them a call and tell them what you think.

Oh, and one other public servant would love to hear from you. The public has been demanding for many months that Congress at least hold an open debate on the Iraq War, a lengthy debate allowing Congress Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce amendments and have them voted on. Instead, House Majority Leader John Boehner (202-225-6205) has announced that he'll allow a short debate next week, with no amendments allowed, and discussion limited to a phony bill the Republicans slapped together in secret this week on a napkin.

OK, I admit I don't know if it was on a napkin. But I guarantee it will sound like it when you read it.

My advice for next week, if you want to keep some sanity, is to ignore the House and watch the Senate, where Senator Russ Feingold will introduce an amendment on the floor requiring that all US troops in Iraq be "redeployed" by December 31.

Get C-Span and watch it, because the media will not tell you about it. They will not tell you for two reasons. First, Feingold is running for president, and the warmongers have already deemed him unacceptable. Second, Senator Hillary Clinton will vote against the amendment, and the warmongers have already deemed her the appropriate peace candidate to lose the 2008 election.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/11672



Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. When are they going to stand up to this kind of bullshit?
Finegold should not be out there alone on this stuff all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. We need Murtha now, out leadership has no balls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Murtha cares about the military, not the people. n.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Right, and Reid and Boxer are effective leaders, strong voices
She acted like a fool under the gun of the GE Butt plug on Meet the Press, and when was the last time Reid even showd up on an importent talk show or morning show wher his cred could be improved?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. How do you get to this from what I said? Murtha is a big defense
budget, pro-military type who is the conduit for the military's beefs with Rummy, Cheney and *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. oh no you didn't. Barbara Boxer has guts, and does not deserved to be
trashed for any stupid interview, no matter what happened. That woman stood up ALONE in the senate and challenged the 2004 election. The only senator to do so.
Don't you dare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. This kind of shit just boils my blood!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Empire Strikes Back! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Rules Committee deserves the blame as much as Boehner!
"Instead, House Majority Leader John Boehner (202-225-6205) has announced that he'll allow a short debate next week, with no amendments allowed, and discussion limited to a phony bill the Republicans slapped together in secret this week on a napkin."

I think this might properly be laid at David Dreier's door as the Chairman of the Rules Committee, he gets to delineate these types of things. According to the Rolling Stone;

"The House Rules Committee is perhaps the free world's outstanding bureaucratic abomination -- a tiny, airless closet deep in the labyrinth of the Capitol where some of the very meanest people on earth spend their days cleaning democracy like a fish. The official function of the committee is to decide which bills and amendments will be voted on by Congress and also to schedule the parameters of debate. If Rules votes against your amendment, your amendment dies. If you control the Rules Committee, you control Congress.

The committee has nine majority members and four minority members. But in fact, only one of those thirteen people matters. Unlike on most committees, whose chairmen are usually chosen on the basis of seniority, the Rules chairman is the appointee of the Speaker of the House.

The current chairman, David Dreier, is a pencil-necked Christian Scientist from Southern California, with exquisite hygiene and a passion for brightly colored ties. While a dependable enough yes man to have remained Rules chairman for six years now, he is basically a human appendage, a prosthetic attachment on the person of the House majority leader, Tom DeLay. "David carries out the wishes of the Republican leadership right down the line,'' said former Texas Congressman Martin Frost, until last year the committee's ranking Democrat."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7539869/four_amendments__a_funeral/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-10-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. KnR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. I read that Bush did that, not the conference committee.
with one of his "signing the bill, and crossing out whatever he doesn't like" tricks.
Is that wrong?
I absolutely trust the afterdowningstreet boys, just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oxbow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
13. Disgusting
Edited on Sun Jun-11-06 10:40 AM by oxbow
They've killed democracy and nobody cares. The will of the people means nothing anymore. They just do what they please behind closed doors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Comforting reading, in a way
The main thing I got out of _A People's History of the United States_ was that garbage like this has happened before (although I believe this is the worst) and that it *always* took a long time for a majority of people to catch on. Just hope enough do so this time before it is too late.
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 Sat May 04th 2024, 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles 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