Barack Obama has now declared -- on Fox News, no less -- that George W. Bush's escalation of the flagrant war crime in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." He also proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror," and pledged, once again, "never to take a military option off the table" (not even the nuclear option) against the "major threat" of Iran.
In short, he continued his relentless campaign to purge himself of any of that weak-sister "anti-war" taint that got attached to him in the early days of his campaign -- which was, of course, responsible for his phenomenal rise in the first place. He rode that wave to national prominence -- trading on the desperate hopes of millions of Americans that the ungodly criminal nightmare in Iraq might finally end -- but it was obvious long ago that he was never going to dance with the ones that brung him. Once it was clear that he might really make it all the way to the top of the greasy pole, he began a dogged campaign to prove to our ruling elite that he would be a "safe pair of hands" for the imperial enterprise.
We've seen this in, among other things, the shameful FISA vote, the bellicose threats to launch incursions into Pakistan (a policy which the Bush Administration is already implementing, with the usual deadly results for civilians), the ritual and repeated assertions of his willingness to attack Iran, and the foolhardy promise to shepherd Georgia's entry into NATO -- a mirror-image of Dick Cheney's stance, and a policy guaranteed to ratchet up tensions with Russia and quite possibly spark not only a new Cold War but a hot war of horrendous proportions if Georgia pulls its future NATO treaty partners into another conflict with Moscow.
But it is Obama's surrender on the Iraq War front -- or rather, the anti-Iraq War front -- that is most striking, and most disheartening. On the very night that John McCain was putting the "success" of the surge at the center of his campaign, Obama was openly, cravenly laying down one of his chief weapons at the feet of Bill O'Reilly. Obama's cheerleading for the surge -- "beyond our wildest dreams!" -- surpassed anything that McCain himself has claimed for the escalation.
That's the opening of Chris Floyd's "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq" (Baltimore Chronicle) and it's a strong column but a few points.
Barack didn't just declare the "surge" a success. He did that while on his attention-seeking world tour. He did that with Katie Couric. That's what the questions by Couric were getting at and what Barack refused to say flat out. His Cult is so deluded that if the words don't fall out of his mouth in simple, declarative statements, no one notices.
It's why he said, when running from the illegal war on July 4th, that people aren't listening to him. He was very clear in the interview with Couric where he stood on the "surge." Couric's questions were an attempt to get him to state directly what he was implying. He refused to do so. It's why Charlie Gibson and George Steph were attempting to pin down his answers in the debate they were called out for. Barack uses legal-ese and avoids direct answers. It's how many in this country have been able to write whatever they wanted onto him. (A point he was making publicly as early as late 2005.) He wanted that Fox interview, he met privately to get it (and to lay down concerns about it and parameters).
With Couric he refused to say directly what his comments added up to (support for the "surge"). She was attacked by the Cult for that interview. O'Reilly has no concerns about the Cult and Barack couldn't weasel out.
When Barack said people hadn't been listening to him (July 4th) he was correct. He is not left. He is not anti-war or even anti-Iraq War. He refuses to call the illegal war "illegal." A lot of people have 'listened' to him adding what they wanted to what he said and never grasping that reality.
You cannot be against the illegal war and shore up, as he did several times in 2004, the Iraq War. You cannot claim credit for a 2002 speech and say (as he has repeatedly until he started running for the Democratic nomination) that, had he been in the Senate in 2002, he doesn't know how he would have voted.
Barack told O'Reilly specifically that he believed the "surge" worked. He'd already said that on CBS but wouldn't do so specifically.
For all the complaints about Bill Clinton using legaleze during the _____ (let's not even put her name in) while he was president, the 'left' has been very happy to swallow legalese and even to add to it to justify Barack.
Allegedly, lessons were learned from 2004. Allegedly, the 'left' was never going to again set the illegal war aside to try to elect a candidate on the hopes of what he might do. Tongues were held when John Kerry was running. Sure he was making war noises, but didn't we all know John as the man who spoke out against Vietnam?
Whether he would have ended the illegal war or not will never be known. People can have their own opinions. (I believe Kerry would have and that may be my own delusion.) But two dangers were known from that process.
One was that you can't bury the peace movement and then, following an election, immediately dig it back up. You put ending the illegal war on hold, you're starting from scratch when you pick the issue back up again.
Another was that elections aren't decided by polling, aren't decided by wishes. Elections are decided by votes (and sometimes by the Supreme Court). And no one knows how people will vote (or if they will -- including if they will be allowed to). The lesson there is that anyone can win and that you don't put all your eggs in one candidate's basket.
John Kerry lost. He didn't make it into the White House. You can point to very real voter disenfranschisement to argue Kerry should have won (and you even invent very non-real suppression). But the reality is Kerry didn't end up in the White House and made no effort to question the results. So he lost.
Despite lies to the contrary, no one knows who will be elected in November. Anyone running -- including Ralph and Cynthia -- could have a push in their direction in the final days and end up the president. It's a crowded field and only one person will be declared president.
To make like Tom Hayden and insist that if Barack loses it is the end of the anti-war movement is to utter not just a lie but a lie that courts disaster.
Whatever does or does not happen to Barack, the movement to end the illegal war (like the illegal war itself) goes on. Barack has never been a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He was invited to the January 2007 DC rally. As with all other rallies to end the illegal war, he declined. It wasn't a fear of rallies, as we all know from watching his myth-making campaign.
He is not a part of the movement to end the illegal war. He did not show up -- even for a second -- at the House hearing where they took the testimonies of Iraq Veterans Against the War. He has done nothing.
He is neither a participant in the movement to end the illegal war nor its leader.
Tom Hayden's pathetic life is so small that he has nothing else to do but be a groupie for Barack. You get the feeling that, if invited, he would pack up everything to go on the road with Barack. (If invited? Barack has famously said that he has no fondness for "Tom Hayden Democrats.")
Tom-Tom is not about ending the illegal war, he is not about empowering anyone. He is about electing Democratic men. That's really all he's ever been about.
He got some credit (and dserved some) for getting honest about how he tailored his own votes (in his monor legislative career) to the Israel lobby. He did that in the summer of 2006. How long after he left office? How long did it take him to get honest?
Honesty doesn't come naturally to Tom-Tom.
So when he scribbles (he may have already) his latest defense of Barack, people need to remember that it takes Tom-Tom at least six years to get even a little honest.
You can be frustrated every hour of the day by all the liars for Barack. Or you can look at it as a gift in that you now know who is incapable of honesty and who has so little respect for themselves and for you that they will lie over and over.
Along with being liars, they're very dumb. Barack needs the left right now. When he gets into office, like most past presidents, he's going to be courting Big Business exclusively until its time to run again. The only limited influence the left has on a candidate is when he or she needs them. With Barack in a dead heat right now with McCain, withdrawing support for Barack could panic him, could force some action on his part.
I wouldn't believe it because he revealed himself as a liar when running for the US Senate. (I'm referring to when Elaine and I spoke with him.) But if pleasing words is enough for the 'left,' they should be forcing him to make some right now. The only way to do that is to let him know that they know the race is close. It's an abdication of their power. They've already abdicated their role, now they're scared of their own power.
Pull support for him. Not tentatively. Pull it. Make it clear why.
Maybe he'll respond with some pleasing words as a result and the little kids can go back to fooling himself that he represents some sort of change. Instead they continue to support him no matter what -- a clear indication that, if elected, he would not be held accountable.
This isn't the only entry for today. But Floyd's written an important piece and I'll use that as my excuse to make this the only entry for today for many hours. I'm honestly going back to bed as soon as this posts. I'm really tired and it's been a long week. I'd planned to do both of today's entries but then saw Floyd's column in the e-mails (Mia, Brad and Kayla have noted it -- others may have as well, but those were the first ones I saw noting it -- I started at the most recent e-mails and have only read a little over fifty).
So focus on Floyd's article and think about it. Try to give it the attention it deserves. I'll post later today and that may be this evening.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.