In the wake of the Bush-Maliki Declaration of an "enduring relationship," TalkingPointsMemo is doing its usual outstanding work by collecting statements from the Democratic Presidential candidates on keeping permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

I expect all of the Democrats to oppose permanent bases since the Democratic Congress has voted repeatedly against them.

Unfortunately, Bush has ignored Congress and built a dozen or so! (Visit the Friends Committee on National Legislation for details on each X.)

So what I really want to see in these statements is (1) the recognition that we have already built permanent bases, and (2) their plans for what to do with those bases.  

And there is a related issue that TPM isn't asking about but someone should: what are their plans for the massive fortified U.S. embassy in the Green Zone?

Obama is concise:

"Barack Obama is against permanent bases in Iraq. He will not seek them. He will not build them. We will not have permanent bases in Iraq if Barack Obama is President."

Obama doesn't address the fact that many have already been built. What will he do with them?

Clinton challenges The Decider:

Dear Mr. President:

I write with great concern over the text of the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America that the White House released yesterday. I am particularly concerned that this document did not contain any explicit reference or language that indicates that the United States will not seek and will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Moreover, the document's failure to note any intent to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is a missed opportunity to pressure Iraq's leaders to make the compromises necessary to achieve political reconciliation in Iraq.

As you know, in 2006, Congress explicitly passed a restriction on the use of any funds to establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of United States Forces in Iraq. However, the Declaration of Principles that you signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki does not explicitly rule out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Rather, the Declaration instead calls for agreements between the two governments "with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres" to be achieved by July 2008. Indeed, press reports indicate that Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, your coordinator for Iraq policy, stated, "It's too soon to tell" what shape and size the future U.S. military relationship with Iraq would take. Given the express will of Congress and the American people to oppose permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, the failure to include express language addressing this issue in the Declaration of Principles with the Iraqi government is deeply troubling. To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Principles does not reference any agreement to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. When you first announced the escalation of U.S. troops earlier this year, the ostensible purpose was to provide the Iraqis with the "breathing space" to achieve political reconciliation. By any meaningful measurement, that political reconciliation has not yet occurred. The absence of any reference to a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq in the Declaration of Principles is a missed opportunity to put pressure on the Iraqis to engage in the compromises necessary for political reconciliation.

I urge you to clarify the Declaration of Principles with the Iraqi government to confirm that the United States does not plan to place any permanent bases within Iraq and instead plans to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Such a clarification would make clear to the citizens of both nations that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is temporary and encourage Iraqi political leaders to make greater efforts towards political reconciliation.

Thank you for your consideration

Like Obama, Clinton doesn't address the fact that many have already been built, or say what she will do with them. But she earns points both for citing Congressional rejection of permanent bases, and for asserting permanent bases "would damage U.S. interests" - which sends a strong message that she'll actually do something to close them down.

Dodd focuses on the short-term task of getting out of Iraq:

Frankly, it’s hard to believe that the Administration is just beginning to figure out what the future bilateral relationship with Iraq should look like after more than four years of military occupation. But, this declaration of principles is more notable for what it doesn’t say than what it does. It does not require Iraqi leaders to make substantive progress on their political benchmarks nor does it end US military involvement in Iraq. Indeed, Senator Dodd is fearful that the lack of clarity on the long-term presence will be used as a justification by this Administration for a permanent military presence in Iraq, at precisely the time when we should be declaring the opposite. In a Dodd Adminsitration, there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.

Like Obama and Clinton, Dodd doesn't address the fact that many have already been built, or say what he will do with them.

John Edwards connects the dots to Bush's announced plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for generations, something too few candidates are pointing out:

"President Bush's announcement of new 'principles' for an agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq is further proof that despite talking about a withdrawal, Bush is planning to pursue a 'Korea-style' American occupation of Iraq for 10 years or more. Our goal in Iraq should be to get the Sunni and Shia to come to their own political solution with a diplomatic offensive, not keep propping them up with American combat troops that are already stretched too thin. We need an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within 9-10 months. By failing to stand up to George Bush and by proposing Iraq plans that would leave combat troops to fight missions based in Iraq, the politicians in Washington are enabling George Bush to sustain the occupation of Iraq." 

Like Obama, Clinton, and Dodd, Edwards doesn't address the fact that many have already been built, or say what he will do with them.

Kucinich sounded the alarm about Bush's construction of permanent bases back on 4/14/05, when he released a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that found over $1 billion for military construction in Iraq and Afghanistan. His spokesman writes:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0414-06.htm
I found this in a few minutes by typing in "Kucinich permanent bases in Iraq" in Google.  I think it's touching that Dodd supporters are claiming to be first to oppose permanent bases.

Beyond that, of course, in early 2002, Dennis Kucinich became the first person running for President to speak up against the war in Iraq.  Later in 2002, he was the only Democrat running who actually voted against the war.

On 2/15/03, the day "the world said no to war", Kucinich spoke against the impending war in New York City at the huge antiwar rally there--the only one running who attended such a rally.

Later in 2003, Kucinich put forward a plan to get us completely out of Iraq in 90 days.  His tag line for that plan was "U.S. out, U.N. in".

In 2006, Kucinich cosponsored Rep. Barbara Lee's bill to close permanent bases, which did pass the House.

In 2007 Kucinich has continued to run against the war; has called and voted consistently for no more funding for the war; has challenged his party repeatedly on the leadership's claim that we need 60 votes to end the war; and has called repeatedly for bringing all the troops out of Iraq, closing the bases, no more contracts for Halliburton; and no privatizing of Iraq's oil. 

And, of course, he is the only one running who is trying to impeach Bush & Cheney for the lies that led to the war in the first place, plus the current threats against Iran.

I could go on, but I'll stop, except to say that the blogosphere's open hostility towards Kucinich continues to baffle me.  If bloggers don't want to support Dennis for some reason, so be it; but it's wrong to disrespect him so blatantly, as so many bloggers do; it's wrong to mock his looks, as if that had anything to do with his policies or his principles; and it's just not right to try to take his proudest, bravest moments away from him, by pretending he does not exist.  On most of the key issues that Democrats care about--the war against Iraq, the occupation of Iraq; the threats against Iran, fair trade, single-payer health care, the Patriot Act, gay marriage, impeachment--the Congressman from a largely blue-collar, ethnic district in Ohio was there first, usually a long time ago.

Kucinich is the first candidate to acknowledge Bush built permanent bases, and to say he will close them. And he has the record to prove it, including co-sponsoring Barbara Lee's resolution against permanent bases in 2005, opposing permanent bases in a floor speech in 2006, and calling the current Democratic plan for Iraq a "total fraud" just last week because it would permit permit bases.