Being for Barack means never telling the truth. Take War Hawk Susan Rice. Don Worthington (Fayetteville Observer) reports: "Rice also likes Obama because he opposed the war in Iraq. Rice was against it, too, initially taking a lot of ribbing from colleagues." Oh, was little Council on/for/of Foreign Relations against it? Was wittle wiar Rice against it?
What John Kerry is saying is that when we have a commander in chief who tells our allies the truth, whose judgment they trust, who is willing to give them a real political and economic stake in our common venture in Iraq, that, yes, we do think that there will be an opportunity for more allies to come on board. But that's only one piece of it. Training Iraqi security personnel and police is absolutely critical. For over a year after the end of hostilities, this administration was AWOL on that job. They finally put in place Gen. Portrayis, who is a great guy doing a very good job but they're not giving him the resources to get the job done.
That's liar Susan Rice, September 20, 2004, The NewsHour, schilling for another loser candidate. It's no surprise she'd go from the effete John Kerry (who looked like Ichobod Crane) to the equally effete Barack Obama who always looks as if he's male model stumbling through a photo shoot. And for the record, it's General David Petraeus, but that's PBS' typo. There's Susan Rice, in 2004, bragging about Petraeus and whining that he's not getting "the resources to get the job done." Yeah, she's a regular peace advocate, isn't she?
No, she's a filthy liar. She couldn't tell the truth if her career depended upon it. Here she is being busted for lying in January:
Today on MSNBC, Obama campaign advisor Susan Rice falsely claimed that Sen. Obama and Hillary have voted differently on Iraq since joining the Senate. Rice claimed these vote differences reflected Sen. Obama's "different position" on the war:
JANSING: Bill Clinton made the point that in the senate Barack Obama voted exactly the same way that senator Hillary Clinton has on Iraq, and is there a vote where they took different positions?
RICE: Yes, they have taken different positions from the beginning…Since coming to the senate, he has been very clear in pushing every year 2005, 2006, and 2007 for a withdrawal of our forces. Senator Clinton took the view for a good part of that period that it would be premature and unwise to signal that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw, to set a timeline or a deadline.
Actually, with the exception of Sen. Obama's vote to promote Gen. Casey, one of the chief architects of the war, his voting record is exactly the same as Hillary. Hillary and Sen. Obama have never voted differently on troop withdrawals, timelines or deadlines.
Full list of votes available here.
And, of course, in November of 2005, she was participating with her gal pal Sarah Sewer (aka Sewall) for the discussion "Counterinsurgency in Iraq: Implications of Irregular Warfare for the USG." Oh, yeah, Leslie Cagan, watch your back, Susan Rice is going to take over the peace movement! Susan Rice is trash and she consistently gets caught lying. You don't hear about that because Liars Lie For Liars. So Amy Goodman ignores Susan Rice, ignores her errors, ignores her long support for the illegal war which includes support for "counter-insurgency" which is nothing but attacking civilians. She's disgusting trash and she seems to think if she lies often enough people will believe her.
There's a little thing called the public record which stands in her way. Or should. But look at the way hack Spencer Ackerman glossed over Sarah Sewall at the end of March. He was schilling hard for her. He probably really is that stupid and is unaware that Sewall has declared that the Iraq War must not be seen as a failure because that judgement would prevent future interventions (she meant wars). Now some might see that and think, "Well, she said that in 2004! She's stupid but it's old!" Uh, she said it in December of 2007 on The Charlie Rose Show. As late as the end of last year, she was screeching that the Iraq War cannot and will not be lost.
Bambi's surrounded by these dementos and Panhandle Media gives him a pass. The same way he's given a pass for his remarks (what he really meant . . .), his advisors are not seen as reflective on him -- no matter how many weirdos are on board advising him. (Ackerman was the war cheerleader who allegedly woke up. A close examination of his writing will never bear out the rumors of an 'awakening.')
Here's 'always against the Iraq War' Susan Rice in December 2002 writing with fellow 'doves' Mikey O'Hanlon and Jamie Steinberg:
The case of Iraqi s particularly significan, since it lies at the heart of the administration's argument for adopting a broad approach to preemption. The weight of the evidence concering Saddam Hussein's past behavior suggests that he is difficult to deter, and that strong U.S. credibility is needed to accomplish that -- but not that he is undeterrable. . . . The strongest argument for making sure that Saddam Hussein never acquires nuclear weapons is that, if he possed them, he would be less constrained and therefore would become much more dangerous in the region.
In between, Rice and her boys repeat all the lies from the administration. (The ". . . ." section.) She is a liar. She was not against the illegal war and her piece did evertyhing to argue for it. Saddam Husein had a history of being deterred and for Rice to dismiss that and to raise the (false) issue of international terrorism (and al Qaeda) really refutes her lie today that she was against the illegal war. She was part of the roll out for the illegal war.
The piece was entitled "The New National Security Strategy and Preemption" and google it if you want to find it. Brookings Institute says they've redesigned their website and I can't find a link for it through the search function. (Type in the title -- with quotes around it -- and you should find a cached version somewhere.) Susan Rice is not a dove. She is a War Hawk. And she is a liar. (She also wants war on Africa which is what she and gal pals Sarah Sewer and Sammy Power giggle about over pillow fights, I'm sure.) If you can't grasp that fact, you may be one of the dupes who still thinks of Mikey O'Hanlon (all this time later) as a "war critic."
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
--"I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4050. Tonight? 4065. Up 15 since last week -- and a few in the press noted it. (No fair pointing out that this may have been only because the month ended this week.) Just Foreign Policy lists 1,205,025 up from 1,201,597 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
i hate the war