<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<pre>
>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006
>
>No Permanent Bases: Passed Both Houses, Removed in
>Conference Committee
>
>By David Swanson
><http:>
>
>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:></pre>
</body>
</html>