Sunday, November 29, 2009

Editorial: Barack The Never Ending Liar

"If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counter-terrorism activities in Iraq."

Who said that?

Barack Obama. September 26, 2007, during the New Hampshire debate.

Remember what he said in Houston February 19, 2008? "I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home."


Yes, it was just more of Barack's Chicken Sop For The Soul.

But remember how Tom-Tom Hayden lapped it up like he'd finally married a new meal ticket, panting, "But these were words worth holding the candidate to. The astonishing thing is that antiwar sentiment among Obama's base is running strongly enough to push the candidate forward to a stronger commitment."

Where's Tom-Tom today?

Talking about everything but Iraq. Naturally.

He squeezed all the money and notoriety he could out of the topic and now he's moved on to Afghanistan. No, Tom-Tom never really finishes anything. Even his affairs had to be ended by the women involved.

But what Barack promised was what he promised.

Look, he's a liar and we told you all about that in real time. Unlike Tom Hayden, we told you what Samantha Power told the BBC in March 2008. Tom Hayden stayed silent until July 4, 2008. He lied, he whored, he spread for Barack.

We noted Samantha Power told the BBC that Barack wouldn't be held to any campaign 'promise' if he was elected. We noted it repeatedly over and over.

Tom Hayden noted it once and only once. He found a spine -- on loan -- July 4, 2008 and then he never uttered a peep.

And he's far from alone. Over 11 months ago, Barack Obama was sworn in.

Derrick Z. Jackson (Boston Globe) reported in real time and observed: "The Obama campaign went into a damage control mode that veered into the territory of George H.W. Bush's 1988 Republican nomination speech in which he declared, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Obama maintains a 'rock-solid commitment . . . It will be 16 months at the most where you can withdraw combat troops'."

Who's holding anyone accountable today?

Barack eased into the White House determined to break the 'promise' and did. And who's called him out?

Our laughable Nobel Peace Prize winner needs to split that prize with George W. Bush because the plan he's operating under currently is Bush's plan.

While the left was largely silent (well, not silent, United For Pathetic and Juvenile was slobbering all over War Hawk Barry), The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman was sounding alarms back in March:

During the campaign, Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.
Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.
The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

But people continue to project onto Barack. The same crowd that insists the SOFA ends the Iraq War. It does no such thing. We've explained that here over and over. If you're still not getting it, ask yourself why, if Barack's really ending the Iraq War in 2011 (as the lie claims), the US Armed Services Committee hasn't seen the plan -- despite repeatedly asking to see it?

In an analysis at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, what happens after the SOFA is explained as: "Negotiations needed to decide status of U.S. support forces in 2012 and beyond." As we've repeatedly explained, the SOFA existed to replace the UN mandate (the mandate was for the occupation of Iraq -- there was no mandate for the illegal war). The UN mandate had twice caused problems for Nouri al-Maliki when he renewed it. The first time, Parliament objected that he'd done without their input. He swore that wouldn't happen again. He did it again and Parliament passed laws. It wasn't in his interest or the US government's interest to do these yearly updates. So the SOFA covered three years. [The SOFA is a treaty for continued occupation. It is not a treaty to end the Iraq War. As a treaty, it really shouldn't be called a Status Of Forces Agreement.] What happens when the SOFA expires?

The Tom-Toms insist that US forces have to leave. We've stuck to the law an repeatedly explained to you that a contract can be renewed.

As long as our 'brave' 'left' 'voices' stay silent, don't look for Barack to end the Iraq War. Why should he work on that? He lied and he got away with it. He lied and no one's calling him out.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }