Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, December 5, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation
The New York Times is reporting about an "apparent evolution" in president-elect Barack Obama's thinking on Iraq, citing his recent statements about his plan to keep a "residual force" in the country and his pledge to "listen to the recommendations of my commanders" as Obama prepares to assume actual command of US forces. "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 Times reported. "[T]the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels."
The reality is there is no "evolution."
Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.
It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.
Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "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." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, The New York Times:
"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "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."
For many months it's been abundantly clear that Obama's Iraq plan is at odds with his campaign rhetoric. Yet, Shanker writes, "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 Times is actually right about this, in a literal sense. There has seldom, if ever, been a public peep about Obama's residual force plans for Iraq from members of his own party, including from those who describe themselves as "anti-war."
But, for those who have scrutinized Obama's plans and the statements of his advisors from the beginning, this is old news. Obama never defined "ending the war" as removing all U.S. forces from Iraq. Besides the counsel of his closest advisors — many of whom are pro-war hawks — Obama's Iraq plan is based on two primary sources: the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" and the 2007 Iraq supplemental spending bill, which, at the time was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. Both envisioned a sustained presence of U.S. forces for an undefined period following a "withdrawal."
In supporting the 2007 supplemental, Obama said it would put the U.S. "one signature away from ending the Iraq War." The bill would have redeployed U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days. But that legislation, vetoed by President Bush, would also have provided for 20,000 to 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq as "trainers," "counter-terrorist forces," or for "protection for embassy/diplomats," according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies. The bill contained no language about how many "private contractors" could remain in Iraq. This helped shed light on what Obama actually meant by "ending the Iraq War."
Other glaring clues to the actual nature of Obama's Iraq plan to anyone paying attention could be found in the public comments of his advisors, particularly on the size of the force Obama may leave in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete. Obama has refused to talk numbers, saying in October, "I have tried not to put a number on it." That has been the position of many of his loyal aides. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," said Susan Rice, Obama's nominee for UN ambassador, during the campaign. "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
But, Richard Danzig, President Clinton's former Navy Secretary who may soon follow Robert Gates as Obama's Defense Secretary, said during the campaign that the "residual force" could number as many as 55,000 troops. That doesn't include Blackwater and other mercenaries and private forces, which the Obama camp has declared the president-elect "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using. At present there are more "contractors" in Iraq than soldiers, which is all the more ominous when considering Obama's Iraq plan.
In April, it was revealed that the coordinator of Obama's Iraq working group, Colin Kahl, had authored a paper, titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," which recommended, "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)." Kahl tried to distance the views expressed in the paper from Obama's official campaign position, but they were and are consistent.
In March, Obama advisor Samantha Power let the cat out of the bag for some people when she described her candidate's 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. "combat" forces as a "best case scenario." Power said, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." (After that remark and referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "monster," Power resigned from the campaign. Now that Obama is president-elect, Power's name has once again resurfaced as a member of his transitional team.)
The New York Times also raised the prospect that Obama could play semantics when defining his 16-month withdrawal plan, observing, "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."
Compare all of the above with a statement Obama made in July: "I intend to end this war. 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."
Some may now accuse Obama of flip-flopping. The reality is that we need to understand what the words "end" "war" "residual" and "decisively" mean when we hear Obama say them.
The reality is there is no "evolution."
Anyone who took the time to cut past Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric of "change" and bringing an "end" to the Iraq war realized early on that the now-president-elect had a plan that boiled down to a down-sizing and rebranding of the occupation. While he emphasized his pledge to withdraw U.S. "combat forces" from Iraq in 16 months (which may or may not happen), he has always said that he intends to keep "residual forces" in place for the foreseeable future.
It's an interesting choice of terms. "Residual" is defined as "the quantity left over at the end of a process." This means that the forces Obama plans to leave in Iraq will remain after he has completed his "withdrawal" plan. No matter how Obama chooses to label the forces he keeps in Iraq, the fact is, they will be occupation forces.
Announcing his national security team this week, Obama reasserted his position. "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." While some have protrayed this as Obama going back on his campaign pledge, it is not. What is new is that some people seem to just now be waking up to the fact that Obama never had a comprehensive plan to fully end the occupation. Most recently, The New York Times:
"On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to 'end the war' in Iraq," wrote reporter Thom Shanker on Thursday. "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."
For many months it's been abundantly clear that Obama's Iraq plan is at odds with his campaign rhetoric. Yet, Shanker writes, "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 Times is actually right about this, in a literal sense. There has seldom, if ever, been a public peep about Obama's residual force plans for Iraq from members of his own party, including from those who describe themselves as "anti-war."
But, for those who have scrutinized Obama's plans and the statements of his advisors from the beginning, this is old news. Obama never defined "ending the war" as removing all U.S. forces from Iraq. Besides the counsel of his closest advisors — many of whom are pro-war hawks — Obama's Iraq plan is based on two primary sources: the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" and the 2007 Iraq supplemental spending bill, which, at the time was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. Both envisioned a sustained presence of U.S. forces for an undefined period following a "withdrawal."
In supporting the 2007 supplemental, Obama said it would put the U.S. "one signature away from ending the Iraq War." The bill would have redeployed U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days. But that legislation, vetoed by President Bush, would also have provided for 20,000 to 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq as "trainers," "counter-terrorist forces," or for "protection for embassy/diplomats," according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies. The bill contained no language about how many "private contractors" could remain in Iraq. This helped shed light on what Obama actually meant by "ending the Iraq War."
Other glaring clues to the actual nature of Obama's Iraq plan to anyone paying attention could be found in the public comments of his advisors, particularly on the size of the force Obama may leave in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete. Obama has refused to talk numbers, saying in October, "I have tried not to put a number on it." That has been the position of many of his loyal aides. "We have not put a number on that. It depends on the circumstances on the ground," said Susan Rice, Obama's nominee for UN ambassador, during the campaign. "It would be worse than folly, it would be dangerous, to put a hard number on the residual forces."
But, Richard Danzig, President Clinton's former Navy Secretary who may soon follow Robert Gates as Obama's Defense Secretary, said during the campaign that the "residual force" could number as many as 55,000 troops. That doesn't include Blackwater and other mercenaries and private forces, which the Obama camp has declared the president-elect "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using. At present there are more "contractors" in Iraq than soldiers, which is all the more ominous when considering Obama's Iraq plan.
In April, it was revealed that the coordinator of Obama's Iraq working group, Colin Kahl, had authored a paper, titled "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," which recommended, "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)." Kahl tried to distance the views expressed in the paper from Obama's official campaign position, but they were and are consistent.
In March, Obama advisor Samantha Power let the cat out of the bag for some people when she described her candidate's 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. "combat" forces as a "best case scenario." Power said, "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." (After that remark and referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "monster," Power resigned from the campaign. Now that Obama is president-elect, Power's name has once again resurfaced as a member of his transitional team.)
The New York Times also raised the prospect that Obama could play semantics when defining his 16-month withdrawal plan, observing, "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."
Compare all of the above with a statement Obama made in July: "I intend to end this war. 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."
Some may now accuse Obama of flip-flopping. The reality is that we need to understand what the words "end" "war" "residual" and "decisively" mean when we hear Obama say them.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
104 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems to be ever clearer to Americans now, why many governments around the world are continuing their nuclear technology policies that will give them options should the US attack them. This is a case in point.
The appointment of Hillary “obliterate Iran” Clinton, The US’s new foreign secretary speaks as loudly as any of those, now trashed “hope and change” speeches. The world doesn’t really care whether America leaves soldiers on Iran’s border and calls them “non combat troops” or “boy scouts”. They are part of an aggressive expansionist strategy that threatens Iraq’s neighbors and by extension, the world. Even the weak Baghdad government has decried the attacks, launched from the US “enduring bases” against Syria and Iran.
I’m curious to know whether there are any Americans who plan to stop the new wars on the horizon, or now that the US cabinet has been chosen, will the left be left to try to influence only minor issues.
...and we put all out hopes and tears into this Likud Changeling. Hoffnung aufgeben.
Looks like guys like me who voted for Obama have just been "Sieg Heiled". Ich bin kein Berliner. Wie sagt Man Dummkopf auf English?
"Looks like guys like me who voted for Obama have just been "Sieg Heiled"."
No you just weren't listening. I never heard him say out right he was going to end the occupation of Iraq. He always stated he was going to draw down troops and left it at that.
Rickster
I like Jeremy Scahill's last line in the article. And Scahill's work in general. Long time.
Of course we knew that Nader was the only good candidate in the race. But, I was happy with the historic moment when the U.S. elected a black man. And a black man could make a good president. Unfortunately I was wrong we didn't elect a black man as president we elected a half-white uncle-tom house slave.
Historically in the US, people of 50 percent African heritage have been called "black" or "African-American," so I do not think it accurate to deny that we elected a black man. We did and "Hooray!" for us. But it just so happens that the President-elect is not merely a black man, but a pathologically lying backstabbing cowardly fascist weasel of a black man, proving once again that black men can do anything white men can. So, on second thought, maybe it really should be "Boo!" for us.
I'd disagree. Cynthia McKinney was an excellent candidate as well.
"Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation"
As the kids used to say: duh.
"to maintain a residual force to provide potential training..."
So the Iraqis need more "training" (what the hell is potential training?) after the more than 5 years of (supposed) training we've already delivered, do they?
Maybe someone should look into what the hell is wrong with our "training" program...
What's the problem?
We were promised 'Change Now!'
Too bad the 'Change' is for the worse.
And it is - We now have a more intelligent, thoughtful fascist government instead of a Bushie 'Bumbling' one.
Scahill's right - no flip-flops here.
But I could be wrong !
qblman It was with great hope and expectation that I voted for Mr. Obama. Indeed, I suspect we ALL had hope, then experienced joy when he was elected. Alas, I fear our hopes are crumbling, our joy fading. We know not what pressures have been brought to bear on our new president, but -- I fear he has not begun auspiciously. The future that once looked so promising is rapidly tarnishing and degenerating. I wish Mr. Obama well and ask that he begin to demonstrate those things for which he SEEMED to stand as a candidate.
How many times over the last years have people been stating Obama only talks about hope and change. How many times has is voting record been thrown in peoples face as evidence he offers no change. I am surprised about one thing, it hasn't taken the two years I thought it would before some people woke up and realized he was nothing but hot air.
Rickster
Obama’s plan was always to place the troops in the embassy compound in Baghdad. This will be the completion of this phase the neo-con strategy for the New American Century. Neo-con diplomacy is the only game in town in Washington, DC, but now it a Democratic administration will be wearing the tin star.
It’s too bad that we who are speaking out are not heard by The New York Times. Apparently we don’t exist.
"Obama’s plan was always to place the troops in the embassy compound in Baghdad."
That's standard operating practice. Every embassy has troops stations as guards stationed in it. What were talking about here is maintaining our military bases. We will probably pull out of the cities to our bases and cut the number of troops by half. Out side of that we will continue to occupy Iraq while calling it the end of the war. Didn't Bush do something similar to that on an aircraft carrier? Something about the end of major combat.
Rickster
Time will tell, of course. But it strikes me that Obama recognises that you haven't won a lot of hearts and minds in Iraq, so that troops guarding your embassy will need to be kept in place and beefed up a great deal.
Also, while taking your own combat troops out of harm's way, he wants to leave military who can advise whatever body, however mixed, will form the new Iraq Government, and train what security forces they use for their protection.
Whatever your hawks may believe, I very much doubt if Obama and your top military have failed to grasp that for you to remain as occupiers - the more so, in greatly reduced number - will not be an option that the Iraqi people or indeed much of the now-inflamed Moslem world will countenance.
This, however grandiose Bushco's new bulti-billion dollar citadel/embassy, and plans for siphoning off their oil or the profits therefrom.
"he wants to leave military who can advise whatever body, however mixed, will form the new Iraq Government"
50,000 to 80,000 thousand troops, that's a heck of a lot of advisers.
Rickster
Iraq=Okinawa with oil. Continuity trumps change. Sorry 'bout dat, hopers.
Sorry, but Mister Obama is above all a politician. The main task of politicians is to play politics. Where's the surprise in all this? If you hoped for more, or believed he would arrive in Washington on a shining steed to part the sea of red-ink or ring in the millenium, you have no one to blame but yourself.
There was an article recently in one of the military blogs to the effect that, with the various remote controlled drones in the air, we could reduce our casualties from "boots on the ground" and conduct the war from the air. As the drones are flown from a computer screen and easy chair in a base in the US, we can kill whom we want and fear no casualties, thus taking the mind of the American Sheeple off the war.
Ah yes, the ultimate computer game. How big a kill score can you get in your eight hours? Science has caught up with science fiction, and all peoples, everywhere, including the dissenters in the US can dread our wrath, striking without warning. Any errors are, of course, collateral damage, due to bad intelligence. (We could have sworn there was a terrorist in that day care center. sorry, here's some money.)
Read "Ender's Game" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game
The newspaper of record for the United States Armed Forces overseas is the "Stars and Stripes." In its Mideast edition of February 19, 2008, Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace said that U.S. Army Central is establishing a permanent platform for "full spectrum operations" in 27 countries around southwest Asia and the Middle East. "These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater. They'll have a permanent presence here. The personnel will change; the commands will remain."
The huge difference between our nation's defense and the neocon agenda's "full spectrum dominance" should be crystal clear by now. The American Empire is NOT LEAVING southwest Asia and the Middle East. This decision is much bigger than what Obama wants or does not want to do. The Empire is 'establishing a permanent platform for "full spectrum operations"'. Why is it so hard for Americans to understand this?
If you don't like it, quit supporting the volunteer troops and quit paying your war taxes. American troops are not defending America. They are defending the ruthless aggression of The American Empire. Obama is not capable of vastly reducing our military war (defense) budget. Obama will not have any more control over this than Bush has. The only way to stop the aggression of The American Empire is for Americans to quit paying for the invasions and occupations of foreign lands.
What part of this do you not understand?
We would do well to heed the pre-invasion advice given by George W. Bush to the Iraqi people: "Your fate will depend on your actions, and it will be no defense to say - I was just following orders." If you want to see change, quit following the orders of the duolopy!
We aren't paying for these invasions. Dubya borrowed the money. Our grandchildren will be paying down Dubya's deficits.
Add the tax cuts, and now the bailouts, Obama's proposed Keynesian stimuli, and all the good working man's jobs gone off shore, and you can add several generations.
We are so screwed. Well, we needed to shut down the economy to reduce GHG emissions, anyway. Mission Accomplished.
J. Scahill is right on the money, as always.
Other than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, none of the frontrunners, including Obama ever intimated that they were pulling out of Iraq. Why is anyone surprised now? All you had was to listen and/or read carefully, and you would have known that the new Embasy,the oil reserves, and the borders of Iraq were going to continue to be guarded by the US Troops, in the range of 60-70,000.More importantly the use of Massive air strikes wherever a so called terrorist may be hiding. The american Empire, and it's concept of american Democracy continues to Rule, untill we are thoroughly bankrupted by this philosophy. and while this is happening we are getting sold into slavery as jobs continue to disappear and our standard of living goes into the toilet. And what time is the revolution?
Jeevee
PLEASE read the voting records! Example of accurate reporting is WWW.LCV.ORG
American imperialism lives on.
The American oligarchy never intended to leave Iraq. That's why they built all those military bases and a huge embassy in Iraq starting day one.
Even if so inclined, Obama has no political upside to go against the military establishment, the Israeli lobby, the oil lobby - who supports complete withdrawal: common dreamers.
This "artical" is nothing but conjecture formed from a host of cherry-picked material taken from quotes and misrepresented statments. Obama knows that he will only be a one-term President if he does not get us out of Iraq and ignoring that fact makes me question the real motivation behind this crap. This article would be better served on the Drudge Report.
Obama answers to the same masters as the rest of the militaristic pawns in Washington. Already, his loyal followers are fawning and praising his choice of killer Gates as defense secretary, and his promise to ESCALATE the cruel war on Afghanistan. Barack Obama is yet one more example of the entrenched system of military dominance in U.S. politics. Or, more appropriately, arrested development.
Sioux Rose
KICK: Right on!
Of the people who voted for Obama, and now realize that his intention is not to completely withdraw from Iraq (who didn't understand what he meant when he said that he would remove 'combat troops' only from Iraq), there might be a handful who will not vote for him again, but most will again succumb to the 'lesser of two evils' argument next election as well.
Why? Because it is easier to be swayed by hope for change than facing the harsh reality that the major parties do not hold important the common people's interest as a third or even fourth priority (their self serving interest being first, corporate elite interests being second, and anyone who gave them, or will give them vast quantities of money third). Correct response requires a correct assessment of reality.
Those who won't stand for anything, will fall for everything.
I cannot believe I read this article and the 26 comments (so far), and NOT ONE referred to the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US.
The SOFA (recently signed by both the Iraqi Parliament and the Bush Administration) calls for US combat forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009. By Dec. 31, 2011, all (note that, ALL!) US troops will be gone. Voters in Iraq will make the final decision on the proposal in an election to be held no later than July 2009.
In this context, both this article and your comments seem, well, uninformed.
Dream on, FTW.
America will have a military presence (military bases) in Iraq for at least another 50 years. It's not up to the Iraqis.
WTF, you're EXACTLY the sort of well-informed investor I'm looking for to bankroll my project to create a fleet of cargo ships to harvest and transport the inexhaustible store of green cheese on the Moon! Can I count you in?
· Yr Obd't Servant
PS: I presume that your fount of information includes the "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality" article posted here.
“NOT ONE referred to the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US”
My sources (the newspapers) tell me that Obama is already planning to break the agreement. Does this surprise you? The agreement was written in the past, and so for Obama it doesn’t exist. Accepting it’s existence would be “looking backward” you see and he says he doesn’t do that, not at breaches of the geneva convention that go unpunished, not at violators of the US constitution who walk free, so why are you thinking that the US government would give the “status of forces agreement” between the illegal invaders and their puppet government some unique respect not accorded to all the other treaties, The UN charter among them, that have been violated by America?
In any case, as has been noted by everyone else, practically, but missed by you, the US says it will remove “combat” forces. Remember what the US has done to the the word “torture” to allow it to claim it doesn’t torture? Use your imagination to guess what the US’s Orwellian definition of “combat” is.
Certainly, in the long run, Iraq and the other occupied territories will be free from the Yanks, on that I agree with you.
We will see, WTF. So far, it looks like Obama is the same old same old. The only thing different is the color.
The issue here is that the SOFA is an international agreement, between the "democratic" peoples of Iraq and the US.
If Obama flies in the face of that agreement, he will be shot down by the Repubs as abrogating the "peace treaty" signed by the Bush Administration, and thereafter the mantra of the Repubs will be "end the illegal occupation". Any gain the Dumbocrats made in 2008 will be lost in 2012.
Besides, it will piss off the Iraqis.
At least we are now describing Iraq for what it is, an Occupation and not a War. Obama promised to end the War, and since it is now an Occupation, he can consider it Mission Accomplished. LOL. Personally, I think it insane to leave all that oil behind after spending all this money, only to have to invade them again for whatever reason we make up at the time.
SOFA calls for complete withdrawal of all forces no later than the end of 2011, 36 months after Obama is President, and he promised 16 months. Also, SOFA allows, subject to mutual agreement a residual force for security and training, post 2011. But this document is meaningless, we can easily destabilize and topple the government if we choose not to leave, blaming it on Al Qaeda, and get a provisional government to invite us to stay. I will eat mny hat if we have fewer than 20,000 troops in Iraq after 2011, and expect it would be at least 60,000. We did not build that huge embassy and bases to leave them unprotected.
Obama is all about same same, while talking change change. His appointments to date prove this, and only the uninformed or those blinded by party loyalty fail to see this.
This is somewhat connected to this article.
I feel sad to say that i can no longer bear to watch jon stuart or colbert. They have become part of the problem, now. They were relevant for a time, and of course i think they are witty people, etc. However, they are 'my obama, right or wrong' people. And there are many who didn't like Bush, but had no problem with Clinton.
The enemy of my enemy isn't always someone who thinks like me. Somehow, i feel things are shifting in a direction that is even more superficial. I got an email from the obama campaign the other day, and they are selling obama mugs as seasonal gifts, for a donation of fifteen dollars or more. It is to 'keep the movement going'. What the heck are these people talking about? (the 2012 election i suppose). This is really going to be a nauseating four years.
I thought i would need to leave if mccain/palin won....
Not even in office yet and stepping down from his "promises". Change my a**!
LOL I've been saying since early summer that Obama will give us the same old same old, albeit with a kinder, less-obviously-fascist - and darker - face. What is ironic is how many "progressive" lefties are now acting EXACTLY like the die-hard Bush lemmings who supported their "commander in chief" no matter what the hell he did to the country, the Constitution, or the law. These die-hard Obama supporters are so enraptured with their new Messiah that it don't make a damned bit of difference how many promises he breaks, flip-flops he performs, or outright lies he tells. He is, to them, OBAMA, and come hell or high water they are gonna back his ass no matter what.
This is why there is very little difference between these "liberal" Obama-worshippers and the REthuglican Bush-worshippers. The policies of Bush and Obama are not really all that different - just a bit of a different veneer on the surface - but their supporters are just as blindly obedient to their Chosen One.
We TRUE progressives remain ever-vigilant against any and all abuses of our beloved Constitution, country, democracy, and the rule of law regardless of the party of the politicians in power, be they "left" or "right." WE are loyal to the U.S.A and its Constitution - NOT to any particular man or woman.
Same old same old. Guantanamo still will exist, Habeas Corpus will still be gone, the government will still be allowed to spy on US citizens, torture will continue (under a different marketing name), the dozens of "black ops" secret prisons around the globe will stay open, the occupation of Iraq will continue, the war in Afghanistan will be escalated, and the use of military "contractors" will continue, or escalate, unabated.
Meh. I predicted it all months ago. The fascist oligarchy remains intact, Obama or Bush.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
WTF,
Isaid it once I'll say it again, the U.S.Military, like Herpes, once you got them they never go away.
Ha! : )
"Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation" I felt it down deep in my soul, but tried to deny it. When Obama started using the term "War on Terror" (the famous bogus phrase started by Bush) I was deeply disappointed. Someone had to just come out and say it and Skahill had the guts to finally put it out there.
Welcome to the Roman Empire - 21st Century. I want to live in a country that does not want to go to war, steal other country's resources and is so arrogant that it feels the need to tell other countries how to conduct themselves.
Between this news and the heist (bailout) going on, I feel so sad to be an American.
steve amato: Scahill is a great journalist, but he anticipates the future. Barak does not sit in the White House, yet. Obama may keep troops in Iraq for three months, then pull them out; he might transfer troops from Iraq to the
West Bank and into Gaza, which would stun Israel like a taser dart to the head.
It is sad that progressive journalists and magazines pre-judge Obama. Take your pick: McCain or Obama? There were no other candidates to choose from. Do you think a McCain Administration would handle Iraq differently than a Barak Administration? I do. Nobody knows what changes will be made inside Iraq under an Obama Administration. But whatever changes are made, they will be needed.
I will support Obama until he pisses me off. But he can't possibility be as mean as Bush, and he at least sounds more intelligent than McCain (or his speaking skills are better than McCain's). Obama is a one-shot deal. If he blows it, the next Republican might be like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, or even David Duke. Rush Limbaugh and David Duke might find themselves tied for the White House in an election, on a Republican ticket, if Obama blows it.
Urthona is what I'm talking about: the lesser-of-two-evils type American. "Well, things could be worse." If the Founders had said that, we'd all be speaking with British accents right now.
Things could indeed be worse than Obama. We could have McCain/Palin,or Jeb Bush. Or Cheney. Yes, duh. But they could be a fuck of a lot BETTER than we're gonna get with Obama. That's my point. Stop settling, for Christ's sake. If all the loser "progressives" had voted for Kucinich, or Nader, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Start holding yourselves, and this country, to a higher fucking STANDARD. We can do better than the lesser of two evils. As for "well, Obama could just be blowing smoke and then when he gets elected yank the troops out of Iraq," I have 4 words for you: DREAM THE FUCK ON. Good Christ, keep those blinders on. I admire optimism, but I despise ignorance. Especially willful ignorance.
Obama-worshippers: rub your eyes, wake the fuck UP, and stop your fucking hero-worship. Same story, different narrator.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Thank you!
What part of the word evil in "the lesser of two evils" do these people NOT understand? The lesser of two evils is still EVIL!
I heard a roomful of union people go ga-ga when Kucinich spoke, raising the roof with thunderous applause and stamping feet, only to turn around and endorse Obama.
Sorry, folks. America is full of really stupid people. (3 out of 10 still think Bush is doing a good job and nearly 70% would vote for Pol Pot before they voted for an atheist! A majority do not believe in evolution and they all think they're going to be rich someday, as long as gays don't get to marry each other.) No Child Left Behind guarantees they'll become even more stupid and less able to think critically. I'm planning my own exit strategy.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I have been thinking the US will abandon Camp Bondsteel before the US leaves Iraq. Now, I'm wondering which will the US leave first? Korea or Iraq?
It's Mr. Obama's war/occupation, now.
He has taken over the criminal enterprise, and intends to run it more efficiently than Mr. Bush.
"New boss just like the old boss."
It's Mr. Obama's war crimes, now.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Anti-war activities are needed more than ever. We will have a canny pragmatist in office instead of a delusional sociopathic puppet. Obama is tuned into reality, which is a plus, but not enough. Right now it is easier for Obama to go along with the powers that be. We should make it a lot more difficult on the issue of ending the invasions, finding peace through diplomacy and tackling the related economic, energy and environmental issues.
Joe
It's looking more and more like we bought a pig in a poke--with lipstick.
Alex