IN POSSIBLE ANTICIPATION OF NEEDING NEW EMPLOYMENT IN 2013, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN HAS TAKEN TO PROMOTING HIS NEW SMALL BUSINESS, "I'VE GOT A LITTLE BUMPER STICKER FOR YOU. OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD, AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE."
WELL KEEP THAT PRINTING PRESS GOING, JOE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A LITTLE BUMPER STICKER FOR YOU AS WELL, "I GOT NO JOB AND I CAN'T FEED MY FAMILY."
LOTS OF LUCK WITH THAT NEW BUMPER STICKER BUSINESS, JOE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Old Whore Tom Hayden resurfaced to distort, lie and smear. Tom Hayden is a joke. He is so much of a joke that Barack Obama publicly and repeatedly derided what he termed "Tom Hayden Democrats" in 2007 and 2008. Possibly demonstrating that men who abuse women are nothing but big cowards, Tom Hayden's never called out Barack but instead worked overtime to talk up the man who has repeatedly and publicly mocked him.
Hijacking the E-Train to Crazy Town and packing plenty of stupid, Tom rabidly barks at everyone including Paul Krugman -- anyone who might question the politics of Barack Obama -- in total or partial as he tries to whip people in line for his abuser Barack Obama.
Dirty whores don't speak for the campaign. Which is why Tom Hayden goes on at length about ObamaCare and how it was up to politicians and the people are just too stupid to grasp this but last night in Charlotte, North Carolina, Barack was stating it's not "what can be done for us, it's about what can be done by us."
There are many decisions Barack's made and actions Barack's taken that I will hold against him. The lunatic ravings of Tom Hayden, however, are not on that list. Here Tom is molesting the topic of Iraq:
Many in the peace movement did not believe it then and dismiss it now. To the extent this is a rational objection - and not blindness - it rests on two arguments. First, some claim that Obama was only following the withdrawal plan already agreed to by George Bush. It is an interesting question for future historians to uncover what shadow entity orchestrated the Iraq-US pact between the end of Bush and the coming of Obama.
Oh, history will be the judge? Seriously? I seem to recall most of us on the left ridiculing Bully Boy Bush when he responded to questions about the Iraq War with statements like that.
That aside, it is logical to conclude that the immanence of Obama's victory pushed the Bush administration to wrap up the best withdrawal agreement possible before the unpredictable newcomer took office.
It isn't logical to conclude any such thing. If the opinion of the people of the world didn't matter to Bully Boy Bush before starting the illegal war, if the opinions of world leaders didn't matter to him, why in the world would the election of Barack matter?
People like Tom Hayden live in their own fact free world. Never having spoken to even one person who worked on the SOFA, Hayden 'just knows' exactly how it happened. The SOFA replaces the UN mandate for the occupation. The UN mandate was yearly -- each year it had to be renewed. Nouri renewed it on his end twice. Outraging the Iraqi politicians both times. The first time (the end of 2006), he insisted he wouldn't do that solo again, that he'd get approval from Parliament. But then he turned around and did the exact same thing at the end of 2007.
The Bush White House realized early on (late 2007), that an agreement that replaced the UN mandate would need to run longer than one year because there was too much anger over these yearly renewals. For that reason, it was a contract that ran three years. Even something that basic is beyond the Tom Haydens. They bought into the lie -- and how popular it was -- that Nouri was sticking it to the White House and dictating the terms. Other than the amount of 'rewards,' Nouri didn't dictate a thing. And the SOFA was written prior to the November 2008 election. (Is Tom even aware of that?) November was about fine tuning it and about surveying Parliament and greasing palms (the Parliament was adament that they would be voting on this contract).
In addition, Obama increased his previous withdrawal commitment in February 2009 to include virtually all American forces instead of leaving behind a "residual" force of 20-30,000.
Tom's spinning so hard that even he has to admit the reality in the next sentence:
It is true that as the endgame neared, Obama left open the possibility of a residual force after American ground troops departed, saying he would be responsive to the request of the Baghdad regime.
Yes, Barack gave an interview to the New York Times as candidate about residual troops. I remember that very well. And you know what I remember most about that?
From the November 2, 2007 snapshot:
On the subject of Iran, Barack Obama appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times. War pornographer Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny who lied in print (click here, here and here -- the paper finally retracted Zeleny's falsehood that should have never appeared) present a view of Barack Obama that's hardly pleasing. Among the many problems with the article is Obama as portrayed in the article -- and his campaign has issued no statement clarifying. The Times has the transcript online and from it, Barack Obama does mildly push the unproven claim that the Iranian government is supporting resistance in Iraq. Gordo's pushed that unproven claim repeatedly for over a year now. But Obama's remarks appear more of a reply and partial points in lengthy sentences -- not the sort of thing a functioning hard news reporter would lead with in an opening paragraph, touch on again in the third paragraph, in the fourth paragraph, in . . . But though this isn't the main emphasis of Obama's statements (at any time -- to be clear, when it pops up, it is a fleeting statement in an overly long, multi-sentenced paragraphs), it does go to the fact that Obama is once again reinforcing unproven claims of the right wing. In the transcript, he comes off as obsessed with Hillary Clinton. After her, he attempts to get a few jabs in at John Edwards and one in at Bill Richardson. Here is what real reporters should have made the lede of the front page: "Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean." That is what the transcript reveals. Gordo really needs to let go of his blood lust for war with Iran.
And then over at Third that Sunday (November 4, 2007), we offered "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq" which was taking the transcript and writing the report as the Times should have covered it. Tuesday November 6, 2007 (see that day's snapshot), Tom Hayden finally discovers and writes about the article with rah-rah for Barack because he didn't read the transcript (and he actually misread the printed article) resulting in this garbage. After we called him out, he would write another article suddenly 'discovering' the transcript and find that things were not as sunny as he'd made out to be.
Point being, he's no one to trust for facts.
Tom-Tom's thrilled Barack doesn't have 'residual troops' in Iraq but for Barack to have residual troops, the SOFA would need to be extended or replaced. With nothing to extend it or replace it, it had to be followed. That's how a contract works.
Here, some on the left seized on these remarks to later claim that Obama had to be forced by the Iraqis to finally leave. There is no evidence for this claim, however. It is equally possible - and I believe more credible - that Obama was simply being Obama, knowing that the Iraqis could not possibly request the Americans to stay.
Dissecting diplomacy, like legislation, is like making sausage, in the old saying. Obama certainly knew that he would gain political cover if he could say with credibility that he was only following Bush's withdrawal plan and Iraq's request.
There is evidence for that claim. I know Tom doesn't care for Arabs. Remember it was only during his Iraq War makeover that he finally 'apologized' for being a tool of the right-wing Israeli government while he was a small-fry state legislature who stupidly thought he would end up president done day. There was Tom, cheering on the murder of Palestinians. He really hasn't changed his anti-Arab views. Try to remember that when everyone was telling Jane Fonda that Rollover was an iffy project, Tom was telling her it was political, prescient and important (in the film, the world's financial downfall is caused largely by greedy, you know this is coming, Arabs). If Tom weren't so 'allergic' to Arabs, maybe he'd read the Arab press. You can find many articles that argue Iraqis forced Barack to back down. Those articles generally note that Iraq refused to grant immunity to US service members and that the White House had already made that a deal breaker.
Having ignored the mountain of articles on that point, Tom wants to then argue:
A more bizarre left criticism of Obama on Iraq is that the war itself never ended but instead morphed into a secret war with tens of thousands of Americans fighting as Special Ops or private contractors.
Is he drunk again? Is that it? I have no idea. But last week, Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) reported:
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
More than 3,500 insurgents have been "taken off the streets of Baghdad" by the elite British force in a series of audacious "Black Ops" over the past two years.
It is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured, several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as "al-Qa'eda in Iraq" have been killed by the SAS.
The SAS is part of a highly secretive unit called "Task Force Black" which also includes Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS.
3,500 killed over the last two years. Seriously, Tom-Tom, you're going to ignore that? You who tries to reference the Honduran death squads in how many articles on Iraq? You're going to ignore that 3,500 Iraqs have been 'taken off the street' as a result of being captured by US and British forces? And that "several hundred" have been killed during this time?
The wars on Latin America in the 70s and 80s targeted which groups? The citizens the oppressive regimes wanted to shut up. And we're not bothered by the news from the Telegraph?
And this isn't 'conspiracy' talk. This is what's been reported by the few reporters who've bothered to report. In December of last year, while everyone was filing 'withdrawal, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC).
MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
Back during Vietnam when he had a little bit of guts, Tom Hayden wouldn't have accepted this as 'withdrawal' but today he's just an old whore. In fact, didn't Tom-Tom just affect outrage over 600 US troops in Honduras? (He did, click here.) As Barbra Streisand tells Robert Redford in The Way We Were, "Hubbell, people are their principles." How sad for Tom Hayden that he no longer has any principles.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Protests in support of Bradley Manning"
"Sweeping the violence under the rug"
"Spinach Soup in the Kitchen"
"Elizabeth Warren's image troubles"
"Barack wasn't the belle of the ball"
"barack palin's energy policy"
"if actresses speak in public ..."
"Gail in Southern Pines needs a tutor"
"Barack Obama has been a lousy president"
"Give him the pink slip"
"Oh, shut up, Joe"
"Joe Biden lied"
"Yeah, we do deserve a president who works for us"
"What his speech writers missed"
"Idiot of the week"
"Can't seal the deal"
"THIS JUST IN! NO SALE!"