Today on NPR's All Things Considered, George McGovern proved an old fool is just an old fool.
The former senator, failed presidential candidate (several times over but most infamously in 1972) and co-author of Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now is praising Barack's Iraq 'plan.'
How feeble-minded is George McGovern? In his book, he calls for all US troops out of Iraq in six months. That is more than do-able. He knows that. Bill Richardson knows that and, when running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, made it very clear that he would remove all US troops from Iraq in six months. For those who pay attention to Iraq (a small number, granted), we now know that if Barack wanted all US troops out he could do so in his first 100 days. That is do-able.
But what Barack's offering instead is approximately a third of the US troops in Iraq -- those classified as "combat forces" -- will be removed from that country over a sixteen month period.
That is not withdrawal. That is not ending the illegal war.
That is doing what Bully Boy and Donald the Rumsfled did -- fighting the illegal war on the cheap. They purposely kept numbers down because the lower the number the lower the public outrage. If they'd tried to send the number of troops that the military was calling necessary, they risked a huge public opinion shift. So what Barack's really doing is dropping down from approximately 140,000 troops currently in Iraq to approximately 80,000.
He is not ending the illegal war. He is continuing it if he sticks to that 'plan.' And it's past time he was called out for that.
He is not offering an end to the Iraq War. You can soothe him and stroke him and fondle him and maybe make yourself as good as you do him in the process. But that's not ending the illegal war. Nor is it being honest.
Let's quote McGovern's most idiotic statement, ""Another 2,500 young Americans have been killed since we wrote our book, thousands of Iraqis have been killed -- and this is too bad. It's always easier to get into a bad situation than it is to get out. And we're finding that out in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, where we were tied down for a full decade."
Wow. Tied down in Vietnam "for a full decade." That's so hard to picture, thank goodness the Iraq War is only two years old. What's that? Yeah, it does hit the six year anniversary in March. By Barack's plan, the illegal war will still be going on in March 2010, March 2011 and March 2012. That will be nine years. And it's really damn doubtful that 2012 -- an election year -- will suddenly see an end to the illegal war.
Barack's not offering an end. He's not offering a full withdrawal.
He never has. A lot of people have lied for him. A lot of 'independent' media types have whored whatever was left of their names to make Barack look good.
But the reality for anyone who studies Barack's 'plan' includes:
1) It is not all troops out of Iraq.
2) It allows for troop numbers to increase if Barack makes that determination.
It's that second point that Tom Hayden and the Cult especially work overtime to ignore. See the 16 months 'plan' is only if things go really great. As Barack's admitted repeatedly (though Panhandle Media refused to tell you about it), if he starts his partial withdrawal and things go badly, he doesn't just freeze this tiny withdrawal,, he intends to send US troops back in.
How many? Well before he could answer that question, he would have to be asked and if there's one thing the liars of Panhandle Media know it is how to avoid embarrasing Barack Obama. Embarrassing themselves? They wallow in that.
So Barack's not ending the illegal war by his 'plan' of 16-months. That 'plan' never promised the Iraq War ended. But damned if the liars didn't lie and swing their ass real hard and work overtime under their street lamps in order to lie to you and swear Barack was all about ending the illegal war.
This is not a new development, it's nothing that so-called 'independent' media shouldn't have been able to tell you months and months ago. From the November 2, 2007 snapshot:
On the subject of Iran, Barack Obama appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times. War pornographer Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny who lied in print (click here, here and here -- the paper finally retracted Zeleny's falsehood that should have never appeared) present a view of Barack Obama that's hardly pleasing. Among the many problems with the article is Obama as portrayed in the article -- and his campaign has issued no statement clarifying. The Times has the transcript online and from it, Barack Obama does mildly push the unproven claim that the Iranian government is supporting resistance in Iraq. Gordo's pushed that unproven claim repeatedly for over a year now. But Obama's remarks appear more of a reply and partial points in lengthy sentences -- not the sort of thing a functioning hard news reporter would lead with in an opening paragraph, touch on again in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, in . . . But though this isn't the main emphasis of Obama's statements (at any time -- to be clear, when it pops up, it is a fleeting statement in an overly long, multi-sentenced paragraphs), it does go to the fact that Obama is once again reinforcing unproven claims of the right wing. In the transcript, he comes off as obsessed with Hillary Clinton. After her, he attempts to get a few jabs in at John Edwards and one in at Bill Richardson. Here is what real reporters should have made the lede of the front page: "Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean."
That is what the transcript reveals. Gordo really needs to let go of his blood lust for war with Iran. Writing up a report, Gordo and Zeleny are useless but, surprisingly, they do a strong job with some of their questions. The paper should have printed up the transcript. If they had, people might be wondering about the 'anti-war' candidate. He maintains Bill Richardson is incorrect on how quickly US troops could be withdrawan from Iraq. Obama states that it would take at least 16 months which makes one wonder how long, if elected, it would take him to move into the White House? If you can grab a strainer or wade through Obama's Chicken Sop For The Soul, you grasp quickly why he refused to pledge (in September's MSNBC 'debate') that, if elected president, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013: He's not talking all troops home. He tries to fudge it, he tries to hide it but it's there in the transcript.
He doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq -- he appears to want them outside of Iraq -- such as Kuwait. But he doesn't see the US embassy in Iraq -- the largest US embassy in the world as a base. However, he does feel that even after the illegal war was ended, US troops would need to remain behind in order guard the embassy and the staff. In addition, it becomes clear that he will keep US troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi police. Because? The reporters don't think to ask. Here's a slice of reality, the US military is not trained to train police officers. Here's another to drop on the plate, Jordan was training them. Jordan got pushed aside around the half-way mark of 2006. If Obama wanted to pull US troops out of Iraq, the most obvious solution is to turn over the duty of training police officers to a non-military force. Along with needing those for trainers, he needs some to protect the trainers. Gordo gets to the point asking, "So how will you protect the trainers without forces in Iraq?" His answer is an embarrassment, he could keep the trainers out of potentially difficult situations. And in Iraq, that would be where? In addition, he would keep troops in Iraq for counter-terrorism (but not, he insists, counter-insurgency). If this doesn't all sound familiar, you slept through this spring and summer when Congressional Dems tried repeatedly to convince the American people that "all troops out of Iraq" could also mean that US troops stay to train, as military police, to fight terrorism, etc. While he's off talking al Qaeda in Iraq (a small number and one most observers state will be forced out by Iraqis when US troops leave) and working in more attacks on Senator Clinton, it's noted that he has "a more expansive approach to Iraq than she does in that you identify in your plan the possiblity of going back into Iraq to protect the populartion if there's an all-out civil war. . . . And providing monitors to help the population relocate and go after war criminals. Those are three elements -- those are new missions for Americans after Iraq that she doesn't postulate." What follows is a comical exchange:
Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions.
NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces?
Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that.
NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over.
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train the police and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
The 'plan' McGovern and others praise today is the same plan it was then. It is not about ending the Iraq War. It was never about ending the Iraq War. And those refusing to pressure Barack to end the Iraq War right now are allowing the killing to continue.
Yes, that includes McGovern. And how ridiculous that he wants to talk about a decade of Vietnam when the US will have been in Iraq for over a decade if people don't stop deluding themselves and stop deluding themselves really quick.
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 4191. Tonight? 4197. The toll includes the Friday announcements (it's already Friday in Iraq). The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." The first is listed as Thursday, it was not released by seven p.m. EST Thursday (which would have been around 3:00 a.m. Friday in Baghdad.) Just Foreign Policy lists 1,284,105 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war -- the same number they listed last Thursday.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
i hate the war
the new york times
all things considered