Permanent Bases in Iraq Threatene by Bush Signing Statement

Not surprising that the Emperor-President would claim this, and it shows why the “no permanent bases” issue continues to be important. The US has large bases in Iraq now that a reasonable person would consider “permanent” (Dahr Jahmail, on Democracy Now this morning, said “6 to 10” permanent bases, which illustrates the vagueness of the term “permament bases”).

My sense is that the “no money for permanent bases” language we have succeeded in passing in a number of bills now is very important but mostly symbolic, a statement by the majority in Congress that the US does not intend a permanent imperial presence in Iraq. This is important for the people of Iraq to hear. At the same time, we see clearly Congress cannot force Bush to accept its interpretation of the “no permanent bases” issue (unless some larger legislative and maybe even constitutional struggle erupts), just as it has not been able to cut off funding for the occupation nor pass a binding timetable for withdrawal.