I grew up in the heyday of Mad Magazine and, like my peers of the time, damn near memorized every issue. One I particularly enjoyed was an issue that spoofed college fight songs and cheers. One spoofy cheer I remember went something like:
WE’LL GET A TOUCHDOWN!
WE’LL GET A TOUCHDOWN!
To which the student body would reply:
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
I thought about that in terms of a current “cheer” for Democrats
WE’LL LEAVE EYE-RACK!
WE’LL LEAVE EYE-RACK! (spelling changed for ..poetic? reasons)
To which the administration replys:
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
Just how can I make such a claim? Because I remembered something that came up early in the invasion of Iraq and has since been forgotten, glossed over or just plain covered up.
We’re building “enduring bases” in Iraq. There has been some quibbling over just what “enduring” means but apparently, it means much more than just a tent city and judging from what little information there is, these are a long, long way from “tent city”. Here’s what Mother Jones Magazine had to say about it all the way back in March of 2005:
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last December that he expected U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for another four years, he was merely confirming what any visitor to the country could have surmised. The omnipresence of the giant defense contractor KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root), the shipments of concrete and other construction materials, and the transformation of decrepit Iraqi military bases into fortified American enclaves—complete with Pizza Huts and DVD stores—are just the most obvious signs that the United States has been digging in for the long haul.
Even then, Mother Jones noted the contradiction of “withdrawing troops” versus what was actually happening on the ground
It's a far cry from administration assurances after the invasion that the troops could start withdrawing from Iraq as early as the fall of 2003. And it is hardly consistent with a prediction by Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, that the troops would be out of Iraq within months, or with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi's guess that the U.S. occupation would last two years.
Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX—and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support.
This was, of course (naturally) just after Donald Rumsfeld said on February 17 of the same year:
2/17/2005, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense globalsecurity
"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.'
"Permanent bases? We have no idea"
source: zfacts: http://zfacts.com/p/263.html
The Christian Science Monitor said that although information was hard to come by, they could glean this in all the way back on 2004.
But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.
Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.
Combine that information with the information on the incredibly huge U. S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and there isn’t much doubt that our leaders intend to stay in Iraq for quite a while.
Maybe this “surge” crap is really a subterfuge. Maybe the real game is to keep 50,000 or 75,000 troops stationed in Iraq permanently in these “enduring bases”.
Maybe I should just go back to reading my MAD MAGAZINES.
WE’LL GET A TOUCHDOWN!
WE’LL GET A TOUCHDOWN!
To which the student body would reply:
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
I thought about that in terms of a current “cheer” for Democrats
WE’LL LEAVE EYE-RACK!
WE’LL LEAVE EYE-RACK! (spelling changed for ..poetic? reasons)
To which the administration replys:
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!
Just how can I make such a claim? Because I remembered something that came up early in the invasion of Iraq and has since been forgotten, glossed over or just plain covered up.
We’re building “enduring bases” in Iraq. There has been some quibbling over just what “enduring” means but apparently, it means much more than just a tent city and judging from what little information there is, these are a long, long way from “tent city”. Here’s what Mother Jones Magazine had to say about it all the way back in March of 2005:
When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last December that he expected U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for another four years, he was merely confirming what any visitor to the country could have surmised. The omnipresence of the giant defense contractor KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root), the shipments of concrete and other construction materials, and the transformation of decrepit Iraqi military bases into fortified American enclaves—complete with Pizza Huts and DVD stores—are just the most obvious signs that the United States has been digging in for the long haul.
Even then, Mother Jones noted the contradiction of “withdrawing troops” versus what was actually happening on the ground
It's a far cry from administration assurances after the invasion that the troops could start withdrawing from Iraq as early as the fall of 2003. And it is hardly consistent with a prediction by Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, that the troops would be out of Iraq within months, or with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi's guess that the U.S. occupation would last two years.
Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003. Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX—and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support.
This was, of course (naturally) just after Donald Rumsfeld said on February 17 of the same year:
2/17/2005, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense globalsecurity
"We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.'
"Permanent bases? We have no idea"
source: zfacts: http://zfacts.com/p/263.html
The Christian Science Monitor said that although information was hard to come by, they could glean this in all the way back on 2004.
But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.
Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.
Combine that information with the information on the incredibly huge U. S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and there isn’t much doubt that our leaders intend to stay in Iraq for quite a while.
Maybe this “surge” crap is really a subterfuge. Maybe the real game is to keep 50,000 or 75,000 troops stationed in Iraq permanently in these “enduring bases”.
Maybe I should just go back to reading my MAD MAGAZINES.
