Gary Hart: End this Evasion about permanent Bases (HuffPo)

It has been the dream of Republican neoconservatives at least since 1998 - and probably years before - to overthrow Saddam Hussein and to use the new client state of Iraq as the US's military and political base from which to pacify the complex and troubled Middle East. Leaving aside the plausibility of this notion, it is not one with which the great American leaders of history would have identified and certainly not one they would have attempted to carry out in secret.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/end-this-evasion-on-perma_b_13293.html

pertains to the current group in power even more than Nixon. They know they have committed crimes against the state to further their agenda. They know they cannot be in the minority-no matter what. I do not put ANYTHING past this criminals. They will not give up power until we their crimes are made public and their true evil is known. Someone must ask the question Gary Hart is posing-but the Dems seem to be too afraid of being labeled by the Rove smear machine as traitors. The oil companies along with other corporations now control the government and any idea they would abandon their interest in Iraq is insane.

likes his new clothes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060105/cm_huffpost/013293;_ylt=A0SOwl35xLxD7v4AbhH9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

<snip>
Any attempt to find out whether the US is, or is not, constructing permanent military bases meets with frustration. The few who have attempted to get a direct answer to this question are met with evasion and purposeful confusion over what is or is not "permanent". But this is the ultimate test of true Bush administration intentions in Iraq. If we are, in fact, constructing permanent bases, "leaving" simply means a reduction of forces and the permanent stationing of US brigades in Iraq. If this "compromise" solution appeals to you, you might wish to refresh your memory about the disastrous French experience in Indochina or even certain phases of the British occupation of Iraq.

Under circumstances where Congress was performing its constitutional oversight responsibilities, and where the press was less intimidated by power, it would be a straightforward exercise to determine whether a final neoconservative trick is afoot. Congressional committees would have senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon and State department officials answer direct questions about US plans. "Mr or Madame secretary, are we, or are we not, constructing permanent military bases in Iraq and, if so, for what purpose?"

But this Congress has made clear it is a purely partisan institution, not a separate branch of government, and that it has no intention of fulfilling its duties to oversee the executive branch and inform the American people. Obviously, reporters could do the same with the White House press secretary (with no serious hope of an honest answer) or, even better, the president.