Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCampaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality
WASHINGTON - On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to "end the war" in Iraq.
![[Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was consulted several times by President-elect Barack Obama since the election. (Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg News) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/iraqwithdrawal1205.jpg "iraqwithdrawal1205.jpg")
But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is
making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will
be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign
promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.
"I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary - likely to be necessary - to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq," Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.
Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that "residual force," a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.
In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama's goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.
That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 - and some say as high as 70,000 - for a substantial time even beyond 2011.
As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come.
There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama's campaign platform to "end the war" by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.
Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned," their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.
In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five "surge" brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining.
At his news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mr. Obama emphasized his willingness to listen to the advice from senior officers and that of his new national security team, which includes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the first Pentagon chief in history to continue serving under a newly elected president; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and, as national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired four-star Marine officer who served as NATO's supreme commander.
Since the election, Mr. Obama has held unannounced consultations with both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, described by Obama aides and Pentagon officials as having focused less on tactics and operations and more on broad, strategic views for American national security. On Wednesday, he made a telephone call to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, according to the Obama transition office.
To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.
At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps' letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.
"I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I've said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders," Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. "And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security."
An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama's thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.
"I intend to end this war," he said then. "My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.
"And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?" Mr. Gates said. "And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point."
102 Comments so far
Show AllObama can't end the war. He doesn't have the power. But he will be expected to manage the war. He will do that in a political way and our troops will continue to suffer and die. War is a product in America that is too big to die. It must always be kept alive, even at the cost of our own citizens.
Hoa binh
since1492:to quote Dennis Kucinich:Congress can stop funding the occupation/war leaving just enough money for shipping the troops home.
So, can the Executive Branch keep a large conflict going without revenue from Congress?
locust:Is that a trick question? One comes to mind:Iran-Contra....getting money from other places (illegally) after Congress (Boland Amendment) says "no" but didn't Congress stop funding Vietnam War?
No trick.
Does the Executive Branch and the military and the corporations and the religions and the Supreme Court (if necessary) currently have the financial, secret and manpower resources to continue a large conflict without Congress or the American people being involved?
We are already mired in multiple military situations which hardly involve the American people at all. Why should Congress care if they don't?
Without Congress and the American people, can large military aggressions still be waged by the US Commander-in-Chief?
I hope not but I wonder about such things.
None of the things you pose would surprise me at all, and of the next to last one, I've wondered if it might not be in the realm of possibilities in spite of the new Commander-in-Chief. With everything we've impotently watched happen in the past eight years, and then there's everything we have no idea of that's probably been put in place, I feel that anything is still possible - althought, amazingly, since the election the hope that was reawakened then is still with me.
The President is Commander in Chief and at his discretion, the determination how all conflicts are fought and where is determined. He still needs the approval of Congress to attack or to declare war, but every single dime spent must be and is approved by Congress. The exception is a slush fund for covert actions or if he deems danger imminent, he may strike without authorization of Congress.
"amazingly, since the election the hope that was reawakened then is still with me."
Well I'm with you. I do believe many things have changed and hope for better still.
.Rose colored glasses alert
Two things, it would seem, have not changed. One is the ideology of those surrounding our new President Elect, the same faces the same poor strategies. The second thing that seems not to change is Thomas' inability to understand being fooled again.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ah-Ha! There in lies the rub!! I wasn't fooled the first time, ergo I couldn't possibly be fooled a second time. Irrefutable logic.
Ideology and I are strangers.
We are going to make you an honorary Texan so you can rise up from that well of darkness, come into the light of hope and put negative thoughts behind you. Then you will see that our new President Elect is going to save the world, solve world poverty and eliminate slavery from the world at last.
No, I don't believe that either, but I hope he does better than GWB and I don't see how I can be wrong.
.Speaking of rising up from the well of darkness ( great turn of a phrase by the by) unless we understand the culprit is how our system has been usurped , and work towards a very necessary change of our corrupt and sick system, it will never matter much for whom you vote.
The best that President Obama might do is throw us a few crumbs, while a select few feast at the main table.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"unless we understand the culprit is how our system has been usurped"
Agreed. Lets unsurp it.
"while a select few feast at the main table."
I believe (hope) the select few are in for a surprise. Obama to me isn't the "changer," its our people. Its not him that will decide things are not. He can be a great President if he reflects Americans, if he works for America, otherwise he will be a quick footnote. I'm almost convinced the American people are about to decide they have had enough of the global lies, the internationalists dishonesty and want their leadership to represent them not the borderless elite.
"Speaking of rising up from the well of darkness ( great turn of a phrase by the by)"
I liked that myself...Thanks!
Is 'unsurp' a word? : )
I like the idea, though!!
If it isn't it should be!
.I would question your belief in the desire of this nations electorate to exercise its power. I do agree that, though far too easily manipulated towards war by the silliest of lies, the great majority of us do not want war, any war. Yet we vote for those who lie easily and deftly, we seem to lack any desire to grapple with complex issues as individuals, and we believe that our sole duty to this nation is to vote every couple of years ( well about 50% of us sometimes).
I noted with sadness the way those favoring candidate Obama saw him as an almost messianic figure, heard the same empty speeches and flowery rhetoric signifying nothing and were transfixed as if with a light from above. I see how our newly elected President fills his cabinet with the same old faces, the same folks dedicated to the same course of action, those who will continue the policies that benefit the very few and harm the very fabric of this nation and read that "we need to give him a chance". There seems to be no chance at all that progressive agendas will come to the table much less be acted upon. We need an electorate who understands that democracy is a participatory sport.
I apologize for the pessimistic rant, my friend, I am usually more upbeat, but its early and I havent yet finished my first cup of coffee...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"I apologize for the pessimistic rant"
Not needed. Pessimism is the friend of opitimism. Optimism without a bit of pessimism is not reality.
"I noted with sadness the way those favoring candidate Obama saw him as an almost messianic figure, heard the same empty speeches and flowery rhetoric signifying nothing and were transfixed as if with a light from above."
I saw the same and just wrote it off to the desperate desire for some (any) form of leadership, and to the naivete of the young. At the same time, I thought he could possibly be a leader, could motivate by speaking, could set a better agenda. Just a few weeks before the election I decided to vote for him based on these reasons. He is a liberal, my hope was that he wasn't stupid enough to jump in and provide all the left wanted and is demanded so often here on CD and other places.
I am not disappointed with his cabinet choices except for Richardson (self server supreme, that I wouldn't want watching my back) They are old faces, but competent ones mostly. Obama will set policy, they will carry it out, but he will bear the responsibility by his own acclaim. If he can restrain his leftist instincts for immediate satisfaction, go a more centrist, slower route (a very popular idea with me), first repairing our economy and developing an American industrial policy, redrawing our trade policies to favor us rather than the nations we trade with, dumping the globalist rhetoric of the elites and recognizing that Nationalism is indeed not dead but in resurgance in very country but ours so far. My proof?, look at the way other nations are trading and setting economic policies. Quite clear I think. AND at the same time begin to institute progressive policies like universal healthcare, getting our troops home, etc., slowly working them in.
So far I believe he is exibiting real leadership qualities by trying to generate non-partisan/bi-partisan cooperation. Can he do it, will he do it, got me. But we will know soon enough.
"I would question your belief in the desire of this nations electorate to exercise its power"
My belief is based on the fact that most of the under fifties have never seen a time when things wren't fairly good, the market wasn't doing well and you could always find a job. Even many folks our age haven't seen really bad times.
We have seen some very bad times that those that didn't serve will never understand, but economically even we haven't seen the bad economic times I believe we are entering. I believe its going to be very rough for a year or more.
Based on this I believe the average American will wake up and demand no more our economy is given away, that importing slave and indentured labor is stopped, demand the corruption be cleaned out, refuse to pay for any more of the Globalists machinations, demand American citizens come first, demand the rule of law be restored, demand we stop wasting our money militarily....ie, spend it wisely and strengethen our military while reducing its budget. Demand a return to education in our schools. No more politics in education, etc.....
I do believe Pax Americana is done, I do believe there will be a multipolarity of powers in the world now rather than just us. And those that have been longing for that will eat bitter fruit. It won't be what they thought. At the same time there will still be no one or combination of nations that can challange us.
"We need an electorate who understands that democracy is a participatory sport."
An electorate that has finally let the largesse given us by "the Greatest Generation" (and they were)be dissapated will now become involved or they won't be employed and we will become a second tier nation in 30 or 40 years.
Don't you feel better about your rant now? This is two glasses of Apple Juice.
.We have an area of disagreement that widens into a chasm in fact. While you note the competence of those appointees to this new administration I recall the direction they shepherded the Clinton and Bush administrations and reach for something a lot stronger than coffee or apple juice!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"I recall the direction they shepherded the Clinton and Bush administrations and reach for something a lot stronger than coffee or apple juice!"
Thats what I meant. I don't believe this guy will be "sheparded" by anyone. But I won't say you are wrong because I am not a believer, just a hoper. I'll keep a good bottle of superior Texas wine close at hand (just in case)
Put it another way....I hope Obama will come thru, but I believe in America and the American people. I trust them...I never trust a politician.
We'll soon see. ( it will be a lot easier for the Grandchildren if I'm right ) But you and I both know how easily you could be right.
.Texas wine? TEXAS wine? Texas WINE? Perhaps you mispelled wHine?
Forgive me, I am from California after all.....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
EVERYONE knows that Texas produces some of the best wine in the world. Do you folks in California produce wine too???? Do ya'll need any help in the nuances of winemaking?
And now you know I'm from Texas!
.I know you will not believe this but wine comes in bottles without screw tops out here! You guys still putting wine in boxes?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
There is no such thing as a bottle of wine without a screw top. Just how dumb do you think Texans are?
.Oh boy could I get in trouble for answering THAT one!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
And all Texans appreciate your diplomatic handling of an open invitation! Nobleses obliege.
.You know, we could take this show on the road.....and any number of folks here probably wish we would!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I'm sure you are right....Lets do! Merry Christmas!!!
Under the U.S. Constitution, no.
But locust asks if the nation's rulers CURRENTLY can continue perpetual conflict. Under Cheney's unitary executive, which has supplanted the Constitution, sure.
You just ignore a) congress, and; b) rule of law. However, the American people continue to supply the money and blood.
locust:I don't know the answer. Hoping someone will help. Chalmers Johnson says the CIA is the President's secret army.
Yes he can.
Joe
Dust off your old signs "Get out of Iraq", make new ones. I'll recopy some of my art and make new "Get out of Iraq" art. Medea Benjamin, this morning, on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org said that she is moving to DC to continue the peace work. Code Pink has a house in DC. Other guest in the same segment was Ralph Nader; cohosting with Amy Goodman was Juan Gonzalez; show and transcript will be online soon. Code Pink's website is www.codepinkalert.org. (I'm old enough to remember LBJ in office....)
interesting, since CODEPINK worked really hard to get Obama elected.
i was at a fundraiser for medea's other organization, global exchange, and she said that 2009 would be better because obama would be president.
CODEPINK wouldn't endorse me, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader (true peace candidates) but they shoved Obama down our throats.
Cindy
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
The problem for organizations like CodePink and others is that they'll get blind-sided by supposedly having "access" in Washington, D.C. I say it's a problem because Obama isn't acting to end the wars. He's stuffing his cabinet full of militarists.
Anti-war groups should understand Obama's positions and act accordingly.
I'd add that no one should vote party line if the party doesn't represent your interests. You can't get change that way. So, it seems CodePink made a miscalculation.
-TIA
Obama may have already decided to jettison the anti war part of the Democratic party and replace those lost votes (in 2012) with independents and non-evangelical Republicans. He has four years to charm them. He doesn't clear out of Iraq (where the insurgency starts up again), pours gasoline on Afghanistan and becomes an intelligent, well spoken version of George Wanker Bush. If that's what he does, he can write a third book called "The Audacity of a Dope". Sarah Palin is waiting for you. So is Jeb Rancid Bush and perhaps your biggest nightmare: The Great Whiter Than White Hope, General David Petri-Dish, the Dwight D. Eisenhower of our time.
Well, surprise, surprise! It turns out that if you voted for Obama, thinking he'd "end the war," you were a sucker!
I seem to recall many third-party advocates trying to point out, before the election, that Obama's "hope and change" schtick was just hot air. But the naifs of the Dem Party just wouldn't listen. They accused "Naderites" and Greens of being "haters," and of being "against hope." They met every criticism of Obama with "Oh, would you rather have McSame?" Well, it turns out that the two of them were not so different after all.
You see, the difference between the two is this: McCain was for the Wall St bailout. Obama, on the other hand, was also for the bailout. // And as for the wars, McCain wanted to continue the wars, all the way to victory. Obama, by contrast, wants to continue the wars.
Is there any difference at all? Sure. McCain told you up front what he intended. Obama, by contrast, didn't. Obama is also much more "eloquent" than Bush (while pursuing generally the same policies, & making appointments that Karl Rove & the editors of the Wall St Journal are praising).
I am one of those people who voted for Obama and if you're right about this (and most likely you are), I will hang my SUCKERFISH OF 2008 certificate on my bedroom wall where I can stare at it every night before I go to sleep. But Obama hasn't assumed power yet and this is real life where things that appear ridiculous in a movie or a novel actually take place. McCain had no idea what "Victory" in Iraq is or was but he wanted to stay there as a way of getting something for being screwed up the backside in Vietnam. Every time he can't raise his arms above his shoulders, he wants to kick Iraqi ass. Obama may be DeGaulle faced with the situation in Algeria. DeGaulle wanted France to stay but knew it was impossible and got out. Let's hope Obama does in Iraq what DeGaulle did in Algeria.
You're right, of course, about McCain. I didn't mean to imply anything positive about McCain, who is an utter jackass.
I do think however that Obama very skillfully misled the people who voted for him. He said vague things rather artfully, using subtle qualifying phrases which most people didn't really notice. This allowed hopeful people to see what they wanted to see.
Jeremy Scahill (author of last year's book on Blackwater) carefully analyzes Obama's campaign rhetoric, in regard to the above NYT article, on Counterpunch today.
A good way to reduce the pain of that “SUCKERFISH OF 2008” certificate is to replace it with a “NEVER AGAIN MAIN PARTY” certificate. Never mind what the issues are or who the candidates are in four year. Just stop voting for republicans or democrats. That single act can save the country. I suspect that many Obama voters are beginning to realize that down deep both main parties represent the very same evil Military Industrial Complex and plutocracy that has been driving this country into the ground since WWII. I hope they don’t forget this in four years.
I have been one of those talking about how Obama will merely be 'Empire' lite as opposed to 'Empire' classic. His congressional voting record gave anyone who cared to look the reality of what his 'change' would look like.
But the pressing issue that is moving beyond politics is the collapse of economic systems worldwide. We have entered the early stages of the greatest depression this planet has ever seen, and nothing can stop it. This is the result of decades of abuse, greed, and lack of ethics. The time has come for the reckoning.
I sincerely doubt this government will survive through 2012. If it does, maybe, just maybe, we will vote our conscience and dreams for a real 'change', but until that happens, we will get what we deserve.
Sure - lite, as in lite cigarettes. They sound better, but in substance, it's the same shit.
For the record, I voted Green (my new party). I am not sorry Obama won, but I fear he doesn't have the guts to seize this incredible gift of total disaster to finally finish off the evil empire and let us birth a new nation -- rethink everything, a real rennaissance.
Yeah, I took a lot of heat from the Obama,acolytes that voting third party would throw the election to McCain. Well, all you Obama voters that were perjorative to third party supporters,it is beginning to look like you got McSame anyway!
as long as there is oil in iraq, america will have a permeating presense
Obama will do exactly what the Republicans would have done. He'll withdraw some troops for PR purposes, but will be sure to keep enough troops and firepower in Iraq to dispatch the current set of puppets and replace them if they ever think about taking back their oil.
Politicians promise this and give you that. Obama I promises to bring the troops home from Iraq. Obama II -only talking about combat troops--not the 50,000 that will remain there. Obama II--no torture, Obama II-we're flexible on torture. Obama I deregulating Wall Street caused this mess. Obama II I'm hiring the deregulators/hedge fund people to run the economy. Hello Rubin, Summers, Emanuel; goodbye Krugman,Galbraith, Baker.
Watch these Dems and their game plan: before Obama takes office--everyone, please, don't say anything bad. After he gets in office--The Republicans, the media, Sarah Palin are blocking my programs.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Dr. Kiss your rear, has just praised some of Obama's choices. This criminal should have been put behind bars a long time ago! Enough said!
Exactly. Anytime Kissinger praises anything should be the first indication that it stinks to high heaven.
Dr. Kissinger supporting Obama's national security people, should be the kiss of death to all Obama supporters!
Complete self-interest from Dr. K: if the appointees won't go after the Bush Crime Family, then he will most likely die peacefully of natural causes rather than from a swift snap of the neck.
Why talk of 'war' in Iraq? Is Mr. Obama intentionally trying to make it harder for himself to fulfill his campaign promises? The 'war' ended in 2003. Bring our women and men home and end the occupation.
Oh, and will the withdrawing troops be coming home or going to Afghanistan?
Or was he talking about the other war? You know, the one that America does not want to discuss, the one that the government and military are seriously involved in even if the people aren't.
I want to hear him speak about how he expects to win the 'war on terror'? When will we know victory in this war to prevent future terrorism? How can we know?
Why do we go on fighting a war that has no victory? Why don't we think of something else?
Where is the tiniest progressive voice in Washington to ask such questions?
One of the worst faults this country has is the way we accuse, try, and convict before any proof of guilt has been shown. I stopped watching news broadcasts when the reporters started telling me what a speaker I'd just listened to had said, and meant by what was said, like I couldn't decipher the meaning of the speech for myself; and then how they began trying and convicting possible suspects in crimes, not caring about innocent lives they were ruining in the process. It's pretty obvious we've learned the techniques well.
So many voices out there now picking apart every blink, every word and action by Obama, and then deciphering his intent, or his plans. The man isn't even sworn in and won't be for over a month, yet he's already being found guilty by so many. I think we really deserve what ever we get after we've picked his bones clean.
It is not necessary to "pick apart every blink, every word" of President Elect Obama. All one needs to know is where he came from. The campaign was merely an "interregnum" of sorts. Obama has returned to where he came from and that is a return I can believe in. The rest is hot air.
Ever since Obama's star rose in the East, enthralled supporters have urged the non-enthralled to "cut him some slack" for a myriad of reasons-- during the dreadful campaign marathon, and now that he's been elected.
I get that the supporters regard critics and dissenters as the nastier classes of predator scavengers-- buzzards, piranhas, jackals, hyenas.
You would prefer, I gather, that Obama be treated as if he were inside a cocoon, and regarded with swooning respect and unconditional positive regard. The goalposts keep moving-- first it was cut him some slack until he gets the nomination; then it was cut him some slack until he gets elected-- don't you see what a high-wire the First "Black" Presidential Candidate has to walk to make history?; now it's cut him some slack until he takes office; next it will be cut him some slack until he gets his feet wet, until the Democrats strengthen their position in the mid-term elections, until he secures the nomination for a second term...
It's absurd to characterize critics as gratuitous and rapacious, or impute to us a malicious and supercilious desire to impose our will or conclusions upon supporters; if anything, that's what supporters are trying to do to critics! By all means make up your own mind in accordance with your wit and sensibility-- but there's no reason that Obama's words and actions should get the benefit of a temporary (but indefinite) amnesty.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm just saying wait until he's in office and actually doing what he's being accused of going to do. This all reminds me of bush's pre-emptive attacks - "kill 'em because I think they're thinkin' about doin' somethin' I don't want 'um ta do."
Don't be ridiculous. He's already "actually doing what he's being accused of going to do." Choosing a whole cabinet full of war hawks & shills for Wall St is a very clear & definite action. It directly affects the future of all of us. There's nothing abstract or ambiguous about it.
Plus, if you read the NYT article, it is clear that he's backtracking & welshing on virtually every single promise he campaigned on.
"...To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come."
The Democratic anti-war left was easily tricked by the smooth language of Mr. Obama. I tried to engage in discussion with many of them but to no avail. They bought the hope and change advertising.
The Democratic anti-war left has already returned to their American Idol/Guitar Hero lifestyle not understanding that voting was merely the first step in a very long excruciatingly difficult process of reclaiming their country.
Definitely worth a read is:
Continuity Error: Guts, Goo and Obama's Imperial Dream
---Chris Floyd http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1654-continuity-error-guts-goo-and-obamas-imper...
Barack Obama's new "national security team" is a grim conglomeration of war criminals, warmongers and apologists for torture and empire who have been praised justly by some rightwingers as a continuation and validation of the Bush Regime's foreign policy. But despite the growing unease these choices have induced in some "progressive" quarters, they in no way constitute a "betrayal" on Obama's part. He has always made it abudantly clear that he stands squarely on the side of a militarist empire – expansive, dominating, brooking no challenge or hindrance to its actions or its preeminence. An empire conceived in bloodshed and dedicated to the proposition that no nation is created equal to the divine American state, whose "interests" – as self-servingly defined by whatever faction of the ruling elite holds temporary sway in Washington – must be pursued at any and every cost. A cost to be paid, of course, by the lesser breeds beyond the Homeland's borders, and, increasingly, by the American people themselves.
...
"Obama is surrounding himself with people who we know - from Hillary Clinton, to Rahm Emanuel, to James Jones. There is no reason to panic," the Israeli official told the Jerusalem Post. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=77528§ionid=351020101
It's looking like the only way to end America's Global Wars of Agression is to run out of money. After we are bankrupt and suffering under another Great Depression there wont be enough war profits to keep the merchants of death interested. Then America can face it's own Tzar Nicholas II problem. When America goes from being the foremost great power of the world to an economic and military disaster it will put an end to the Republican Dynasty.
.I was against this war from the very beginning....Barack Obama, in 2006 and 2007.
.I will take our troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they really belong....Barack Obama, 2008 campaign
.I will leave our troops in Iraq AND send them to Afghanistan and Pakistan....President Elect Barack Obama, now.
Dont blame me I voted for Nader.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I want to read apologies from every progressive/liberal/Democrat who voted from Mr. Obama.
I told you he was a liar and corporate shill. Indeed, many many people told you he was a liar and corporate shill.
Apologize or shut the F..K up. Don't reproduce and don't vote, ever.
"This (Old) News Just In... Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/this-old-news-just-in-oba_b_148690.html
Not from me. I voted for Obama. It was him or McCain. And Miss Palin. McCain we will stay in Iraq for a thousand years McCain. I wept for joy when I helped elect Obama. Me and millions. It would be nice if Jesus had run. I'd have voted for him. But please don't try to shame me. To Hope & Change, for Obama's supporters and detractors also.
While America exists, war will never end! The Master Race loves war, loves killing, loves destroying, loves taking, loves power. The eagle was well chosen as its symbol.
But, ironically, the eagle only kills for its immediate food needs. The eagle doesn't destroy the environment. The eagle doesn't torture. Perhaps America needs another symbol.
A cancer cell might be appropriate!
www.dangerouscreation.com
.I would urge you to reconsider your harsh words above. America is made up of disparate numbers of people. Those who deal in death for profit are a tiny minority who have used their great wealth and the cupidity of our elected officials to usurp that which our Founders intended.
I have found, in my travels around this nation, that Americans are kind hearted and well intentioned people, good to their children and kind to their neighbors. That they have been ensnared in a web of easy credit and job insecurity into remaining silent, or worse, believing the lies told to them is perhaps partially all our faults. But the real criminals are not the majority of this nation's citizenry.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ah, Ardee, the problem is that most Americans are so indoctrinated with Master Race propaganda that they just don't know (or don't care) what is happening either within their country or what the leaders of their country are really doing around the planet!
Your citizens (many of whom individually are nice people), those who elected Bush twice, must take responsibility for what he did and, more than likely, for what Obama will do starting January.
If you would like to know more about indoctrination in America, please check my blog!
www.dangerouscreation.com
DavidG.
Please stop using the Nazi era identifiers like "Master Race" , it discredits what you are trying to say.
Which by the way I disagree with of course. Americans are pretty much what Ardee described....heck, he even included Texans.
."..heck, he even included Texans."
Well, yeah, but grudgingly.
I understand those who think as does David, after all it is easy to become extremely frustrated when one is enlightened as is that poster. I suspect that he has yet to attain our many years and ability to see perspective. The problem with such frustration is that it alienates us from those we most need to effect change.
I recommend more community activity and activism. When delivering donations this past holiday to our homeless shelters I took note of the many folks volunteering to help those less fortunate and I reaffirmed belief in our citizens.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
."..heck, he even included Texans."
"Well, yeah, but grudgingly."
At least we were included!
"The problem with such frustration is that it alienates us from those we most need to effect change."
Thats the absolute unvarnished truth. And yes he is a good poster.
"When delivering donations this past holiday to our homeless shelters I took note of the many folks volunteering to help those less fortunate and I reaffirmed belief in our citizens"
I'm seeing the same thing. Donations to our food bank are coming in now that people know the need. Our Outreach Center is getting "Mucho Grande" stuff. I believe thats why I chew nails when I see the "America is evil BS" evidenced by some.
I understand that Benjamin Franklin once proposed the turkey as the national bird. Every year in the United States, turkeys get stuffed, basted and baked as a symbol for a mythical Thanksgiving feast.
In real history, Thanksgiving feasts were held by the early European colonists, both for the traditional harvest festival, and for special occasions, such as the slaughter of neighboring Native American tribes.
So, the turkey probably is a better symbol for the United States after all.
-TIA
Ever heard any comedy by Stan Freberg? He was big in the 50s and 60s. He did a whole "History of the United States" bit that was absolutely hilarious! It went from Columbus to the end of the Revolutionary War, and then he later made a second part in the 80s I think. Anyway, there was a small part in there where they play off that whole eagle/turkey issue. Two guys are in charge of making the meal for the first Thanksgiving, and one of them accidentally cooks the turkey instead of the eagle.
Narrator: Needless to say, the luncheon there under the trees was a great success, and a good time was had by Puritan and Indian alike. Everything came off beautifully, with the exception of one minor catastrophe.
Mayor: What do you mean you cooked the turkey, Charlie?
Charlie: Well, I cooked the turkey, that’s all.
Mayor: You put our national bird in the oven. Is that correct?
Charlie: Yeah, well I, uh . . .
Mayor: And all of us had our mouths set for roast eagle with all the trimmings.
Charlie: Yeah, well I, uh . . .
Mayor: You did a thing like that?
Charlie: Well, the two birds were lying there side by side.
Mayor: The *turkey* was for the centerpiece, Charlie, I mean . . .
Charlie: Well, they looked so much alike that I, uh . . .
Mayor: Well, we blew it now. They’re all sitting down at the tables out there.
Charlie: Yeah, yeah.
Mayor: . . . starting on their little nut cups already. Just have to switch the birds, that’s all.
Charlie: Yeah, well . . .
Mayor: Serve them turkey instead of eagle. But it’s kinda scrawny-lookin’, isn’t it?
Charlie: Yeah, well I thought I’d stuff some old bread in it and make it look a little fatter.
Mayor: You do that, OK?
Charlie: OK.
Who controls Obama? lets see, if Obama picked a duel American Palestinian citizen, whose father was a murdering terrorist for his chief of staff do you think he would be impeached before he was sworn in?
Cut off the damn funding!!!
Reality, poo.
What gains in Iraq?
Why more of the same?
Do like the Russians in
Afghanistan. No, don't leave
the troops to find their way
back by themselves, but do stop
the war tomorrow.
Go cold turkey, realizing that
Americans are stupid idiots who
have an addiction but refuse to
deal with it. (I refuse to say
"we Americans" this time-- I
said that too much and it got
old.)
Isn't this the land of Katharine
Hepburn? Well let's have a firm
decision then!
And don't repeat the stupid behavior
in Afghanistan.
How dare any American politician
talk about cutting expenses when he or
she won't:
(A) cut the Iraq expense
(B) cut the Afghanistan
expense.
Just what do we expect to
achieve in Afghanistan?
I heard someone try to
explain it today on the radio.
To prevent another 9/11, the
person said.
Following the same reasoning,
we'd better revive our war
with Great Britain to prevent
another Boston Tea Party.
And attack the Falkland Islands.
Didn't they have a war with
Argentina? With a name like
that they might attack at any
time.
And Germany torpedoed our ships.
So get that German navy! You never
know when they might do it again.
And blow up the Mexicans. They made
a tortilla that was too hot.
Back in the days of movie westerns, the forts where the soldiers stayed had really good names. The new forts in Iraq have ok names, but I can't recall any, so I propose that we can at least name one Fort Forever.
Back in the days of movie westerns, the forts where the soldiers stayed had really good names. The new forts in Iraq have ok names, but I can't recall any, so I propose that we can at least name one Fort Forever.
So, here's an idea for all the left-wing folks in the antiwar movement: now that YOU've helped elect Obama, why not TELL him what's on your mind NOW rather than wait until the illusion of his progressive-ness evaporates in a year? I am yet to see any calls for demonstrations against Obama's apparent flip-flopping by the Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and United for Peace and Justice types.
Maybe I'm funny that way, but it seems NOW is the time to take the guy heavily indebted to YOUR efforts to get him elected to the office of president to task!
… The city has put on
glass armor in rock war against its death,
which is internal. It rides out radiate
on country roads to ride down enemy foliage.
Why? There’s nothing left in it to kill
except its people …
~~ Alan Dugan, “On Leaving Town”
I also feel betrayed by Obama....
I started my suspicions when I saw him go to the Israeli Lobby and PAC, later when I saw him kissing the Israeli 'crying wall', and worse yet, when I saw him signing the appropriations to continue funding the invasion of Iraq.
Then I saw him and heard him saying we were going to pull the 'combat troops' from Iraq, but wait ! ....just to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Worse yet, when I saw him signing the 700+ Billion dollar package or welfare for the rich.
The ultimate clue to the betrayal is when he formed a cabinet full of HAWKS !
Now I don't believe any of his promises..... like all politicians, he appears to be in the pocket of the people that pull the strings from the top.
I don't feel betrayed because I saw all this clusterfuck coming...and I didn't fall for the hype and rhetoric like most "liberals" and being a far lefty and happy to be...I didn't vote for the phony. Business as usual and everlasting war are the orders of the day...Shit.
.Your feeling of betrayal is a good thing, it will lead you to the truth if you let it. It is a stepping stone towards voting correctly the next time out. Perhaps understanding this betrayal will allow you to broaden your perspective on how we have all been betrayed by the two party system. Now act upon that understanding.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Obama would never have ascended to his current position if the powers that be felt he did not represent their interests. He's a willing player of the game that has brought us the War OF Terror, the Vietnam War (I've checked out websites detailing all the malformed babies being born in Vietnam since, have you?), the theft of America's hard work, and so so much suffering in between... "Nice" to know Obama tows the line and offers up his backside any time one of the masters needs a special favor (FISA, AIPAC anyone?).
You're only fooling yourself if you think Obama meant the "change" YOU believe in.
"To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come."
There's been LOTS of criticism. Hey, New York Times, I guess you are the Almighty Deciders of what is "significant".
Unless they're referring to the antiwar left in Congress... which, indeed, hasn't done enough.
I can picture Obama in some underground chamber, strapped down, being fed Kool Ade intravenously... or maybe it's just something in the water there in Washington.
Yeah, I don't know what the author meant by that statement. People have been protesting the wars for years and you couldn't get the press to show up.
If the author is expecting Obama supporters to protest the wars, well maybe they will with time. However, a lot of them just don't understand that Obama's war plans fit within the general Washington consensus of sustaining the wars, not ending them.
-TIA
"To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come."
Isn't this the core problem? The anti war "left" are a gutless bunch of losers who do not have the spine of those in 1968.
WHERE IS THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT?
"Isn't this the core problem? The anti war "left" are a gutless bunch of losers who do not have the spine of those in 1968."
I truly wouldn't agree with this. The anti war left of today and 68 are different. These are different wars. Plus the groups are different. The anti war left of the Viet Nam war had many partners to work with and were a far, far larger group. They did their part in stopping it.
I believe they have done all they could now and have helped to start the end of these wars just as tha folks did in 68. Wars don't stop on a dime. The troops will come home now. Beats the heck out of Cheney's plans.
Hey Thomas,
I thought you were up here in Canada taking part in our little parliamentary rebellion but I guess you are still down there in Texas.(lol) If you hadn't heard the neo-cons won the first round but round two comes up in January.(LOL)
You are absolutely correct when you say that wars don't stop on a dime. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be worse than the current vice-President's plans. What the future will bring no one knows but it just has to better than anything we did in the past. The status quo is totally unacceptable.
Howdy Dante!
Yep, watching from afar. Harpers little trick of suspending....many an American President would love to have been able to suspend Congress from conveneing.
I somehow doubt late January will be kind to Mr. Harper.
Invasion and occupation of Iraq, torture, unconstitutional and criminal seizing of the Constitutional rights of Americans and lawlessness have been fully bi-partisan over the past 8 years. The Democrats cynically have blamed Bush while voting in huge numbers for the war and occupation, the war's funding and the Destroy-the-Constitution Acts (Patriot Acts, Protect America Act, Military Commissional Act). They bi-laterally passed the Reward Predator Lenders Act (Bankruptcy Act) based on their foreknowledge there would be a major collapse and wanted to force those who would seek bankruptcy relief to repay the loans.
The Dems marched lockstep with Bush in bailing out the financial institutions with no enforced accountability, no enforced transparency and no reregulation, even though everyone knew the financial institutions and their Administration allies (people who came from the financial institutions that caused the collapse) would simply eat the money up with no reform.
And now Obama has chosen a team of voodoo economics=Reaganomics=Rubinomics people to fix the collapse they caused and were enriched by. These people to a person believe in unbridled free trade, privatization, deregulation and spend and borrow (Rubinomics/voodooeconomics) instead of restoring truly progressive taxation. He masks their culpability in the collapse by getting them to agree to the obvious Keynsian infrastructure spending that must happen to try to stimulate the economy.
And Obama picked warmongerers Clinton (I'm-proud-I-voted-to-send-young-Americans-to-get-killed-and-maimed-against-the-interests-of-the-United-States) as Secretary of State (one of a very few positions for which her record proves she's unqualified) and "I'm-not-Rumsfeld-and-therefore-deserve-to-remain-Sec. Def." Gates for Sec. Def. even though he supports torture, the occupation, Blackwater and Haliburton.
It's pretty clear the Dems are equally bad to the Republicans and will continue their policies with some minor improvements around the edges and call it change.
Harvey,
Its quiet simple !!!!
Israel went "all the way" to get the USA into Iraq and wants the USA in Iraq FOREVER ....for over 30 years America was "successfully" worked on by Israel + their Jewish American neocon to bring a 20 year Holocaust to Iraq.
Can any sane person possibly thing that Iraq is a SUCCESS ???
0.2% of the World's population orchestrated the above are repeating with Iran-- PLEASE !!
I don't see how you people expect Obama to end the war when he's got a pro-war pro-occupation in Iraq Congress and you people never pay attention to local and state level elections. Plus, as long as people are warped in consumerism, the wars for the oil needed to keep this arrogance going are only going to continue. Change begins from the local level, not from the White House. At least Obama is not going to be like Bush and Mccain preemptively attacking the rights of states and local levels to clean up the mess. Obama can only change the direction at best.
Argghhh....
Few people were really paying attention to what Obama said...they were mesmerized by style because he could say "hope" and "change" and he could do it with a straight face and no sense of irony.
We were set up the last 8 years by a relative moron (whose IQ is just above mentally retarded) and anyone who can put 3 words together without a teleprompter looks like a genius.
Obama never promised a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq which was a demand of the US anti-war movement. Now that he is the emperor-elect, the anti-war movement is strangely silent....and Medea Benjamin saying that she is moving to DC to continue peace work is also hypocritical since her organization, CODEPINK, worked really hard to get Obama elected and then hid behind their non-profit status to ignore my campaign.
I thought Common Dreams wasn't printing my articles because I was a candidate, but they still arent' printing my articles....oh well.
Things are going to get much worse in the world before, or if, they get better and now is not a time to give up.
xo
Cindy
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
.Hi Ms. Sheehan, good to hear from you again. I ,too, wonder at the silence from the left. As a veteran of both the Viet Nam conflict and the protest movement against it, as one who marched against the onset of the Iraqi invasion alongside thousands of others, millions world wide in fact, I find this silence more than puzzling.
There were many of us who preached and warned against believing the almost demagogic words of candidate Obama, yet now I find them unavailable, at least here. I see our streets empty of protesters and for far too long. I cannot help but wonder if the economic crisis is scaring people into silence, and if that is its intended purpose.....
I hope to see you enter the political arena again, as I think we need you in our government, whether in local, state or federal office.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Folks, you are forgetting that the left lost with this last election. Obama isn't on the left. He's not going to end the wars, as this article points out.
Maybe what this thread means to ask is this: Where are all of the Obama voters pressuring Obama to end the wars?
The left understands that Obama can't be moved from his pro-war positions. We've known it since before the election. Your complaint is with mainstream Democratic Party voters, not with the left.
-TIA
I remember a wonderful bumper sticker I saw recently that points to this idea:
"True progressives are those who still protest war when the Democrats are in power."
.The best such sticker I have seen still remains the one in Oregon, near my retirement home in fact, "I love my country but I fear my government".
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I doubt Obama has the time to read Common Dreams and consider all our gripes. I'm bitching on his blog, hoping his webmaster will pass our thoughts up to him. Direct online democracy got him elected. Maybe it can get him directed.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13857
A Loud Silence: The "left" turns pro-war
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
Bravo Justin! The time to take Obama to task about his (even perceived) campaign promises is NOW! Where are the calls for demonstrations?!
I also think that Justin is correctly taking the "left" to task, too.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
snydly
Here's a wild one, Cindy.
The 'root' is the CORPORATION.
Now this will sound all sack cloth and ashes, but consider everything you know about the corporation from Hartmann, Klein and Korten, etal, and hear the words:
"The Corporation IS the Anti-Christ" as described in a dream of some crazy-assed associate of J the C back during the Roman occupation of the middle east.
Christ---AntiChrist.
Human---AntiHuman.
Ecology---Profit.
Person---LegalEntity.
Peace---War.
Hi Cindy,
Long time no see. And I thought you were kicked out or something. I've been coming across a lot of so-called progressive/liberal blogs sites that BAN users for speaking against Obama or even the Democrats but I don't think that this site is one of them. I did notice however that a lot of the hardcore Nader supporters have mysteriously disappeared. While I didn't agree with everything they had to say, they did bring up a lot of valid points about what needs to be seriously improved upon.
By the way, even in my state, there are a lot of us who truly admire you. Don't let the overwhelming Republican vote bother you. My wife loves pols such as yourself and she thinks you're a braveheart. If the so-called left would make up its mind, trust me, we Idahoans would not hesitate to give the left a chance. Their waffling around is what irritates a lot of us. I noticed you mentioned about Medea Benjamin. My coworker told me that his wife lost trust in CODE PINK the minute she heard Medea endorsing Obama over Kucinich and even criticizing Nader. I may have voted Obama myself because I had no hope of seeing Ralph Nader gaining any traction let alone in my state. Still, at times I find it unreasonable that true liberals and progressives get left out even by their own. This needs to be corrected or else nothing will improve.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Yea to Idaho...!
I spoke there many years ago before Camp Casey in the summer of '05.
Hope I can come back again soon. Stir some stuff up.
Love
Cindy
(I voted for Cynthia McKinney)
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to every one striking at the root" HD Thoreau
Yes, there have been many desaparecidos, here too. Even mentioning the phenomenon can result in your becoming one of them. Sad and reprehensible.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Cindy,
Please allow me express my utter disbelief at the outcome of your effort to unseat Nancy Pelosi. The voters of San Francisco did a great disservice to America by not electing you. I guess Obama-mania led all those who don’t really pay attention to reality into believing that he would do many of the things that you talked about. I guess it shows the power of blanket propaganda. I’ll never forget the TV images of Opra and Jesse Jackson showing their euphoria at the outcome, an outcome that they were not intelligent enough to realize was a big lie. It was embarrassing to see them, supposed symbols of human rights in this country, completely bamboozled into believing that the country had just accomplished a great feat, and that we are on the forefront of change. How could people at that level be so naïve? It is truly embarrassing.
Myself, I have been very depressed. I posted “I told you so” a few times but it has done little to lift my profound sadness over the ground lost by third party and independent candidates, and especially your loss. Due to my age I will probably not see the next election, or understand it if I am still alive in four years. I am destined to leave this earth knowing that it is in much worse shape than the day I was placed here. I am ashamed that over the course of my life I did not do my part to actively oppose the corruption that has overtaken this country.
Thank you for your tireless effort as a peace activist.
I'll try to reserve a special cloud for you in heaven, one that isn't PINK.
IT IS EARLY IN THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY.
Am I correct in remembering that Pelosi said she'd impeach if she got 10,000 hand written letters demanding it?
Perhaps if BHO found bags of mail on his doorstep April 21st demanding an end to the war...???
One day after 4 million people chanted "End the war" at his inauguration???
AND, Mr Gates, this is how you responsibly end a war---you gather all the soldiers together and ask them, by show of hands, who would not mind being the last one killed in Iraq. Then ask, by show of hands, who has some good ideas on how we can get out of there.
Obama, now president-elect, said on Dec 1, 2008:
"I think this is fun for the press, to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign."