There was pathetic Dennis Kucinich, supposedly brought on to speak out against the Afghanistan War 'surge' that Barack Obama announced the night of December 1st:
And I think that all those who really support this President, who really like him -- and I like him -- need to challenge him on this. Because we can't just let this go by the boards because we may have some sympathetic feelings for the difficult task that he has undertaken as President of the United States.
and
It can be challenged without making President Obama the issue.
What a pathetic excuse for a member of Congress. It is about Barack, he is the issue. He is the one sending the additional troops to Afghanistan. That was his decision. And pathetic Dennis Kucinich would have no problem calling out George W. Bush but when it comes to Barack it's time to say "I like him" and he's not the issue and we have "sympathetic feelings for the difficult task". What the hell is that crap?
Speaking only for us -- and speaking honestly -- we never had "sympathetic feelings for the difficult task" George W. Bush faced. Our feelings were the idiot thought he was ready to be in the Oval Office. He wanted the job, he got it, we'll judge his performance. The same applies to Barack. But namby, pamby fat asses like Dennis Kucinich are the reason that the left couldn't even get the Congressional switchboards ringing over this issue last week. When the left needed to hear outrage and anger, needed motivation, there was little Denny Kucinich, tiny penis in hand, telling everyone to chill-ax and it's no big deal.
It is a huge deal and Barack Obama is a War Hawk.
But facts are always hard to find on Democracy Now! which is how we got this laughable claim from Amy Goodman, "Congressman Kucinich ran for President against then Senator Obama." We'll deal with a judgment call in a second. We agree with the complaints, but that's a judgment call. Let's deal first with the facts. Dennis Kucinich did not run for president against Barack Obama. Dennis Kucinich's name was in the running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. There's a world of difference. (Those running for president in 2008 included: Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, John McCain and Barack Obama.) As for ever being "against" Obama, Dennis is a whore and a stupid whore.
He imploded his own campaign and created a lake of ill will that floods over anytime he pulls a stunt like he did last week on Democracy Now! Dennis Kucinich allegedly stood for peace. Iowa doesn't vote in a primary. They have a caucus. It has many rounds. People switch sides throughout the rounds. Dennis Kucinich told his supporters to go to Barack Obama in Iowa. Barack's 'win' in Iowa was so impressive that he got non-stop publicity. But the fact was, his 'win' was unimpressive. Other candidates forked over delegates including Bill Richardson (Richardson's campaign ordered/instructed his delegates to go to Barack). Now Iowa had three front runners (according to the media): Barack, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Dennis hates women (check out that forever evolving abortion position) so he was never going to go with Hillary even if she announced an underground railroad for all enlisted service members to Canada and led the railroad. So that left John Edwards or Barack Obama. Which one of the two was promising to end the Iraq War and to do so quickly? It was John Edwards. If Edwards had come out ahead in Iowa, it would have been a very different race. Poser Barack would have been out and it would have been a fight between Edwards and Hillary.
Dennis didn't care about peace -- he cared about the sweet ass deal he cut for himself with the Obama campaign (a deal, not surprisingly, he's never discussed publicly). It's the same sort of deal that he cut for himself at the DNC convention in 2004 when he was supposed to be fighting to get a peace plank calling for immediate withdrawal into the party platform. Instead, he went along with Sandy Berger and the sweet ass deal they cut. Dennis always looks out for Dennis. While the peace movement repeatedly thinks he's standing with them, Dennis is always setting his end up.
Dennis self-presents well, he just lacks of the desire or skill to back up his words.
Words?
Amy Goodman played 524 words Barack spoke in his latest bad speech. Barack was pushing a "surge" and remember how we said this felt like a repeat?
Bush had a "surge" in Iraq. January 11, 2007, Amy Goodman played some of his speech. Last week, Barack got 524 words. In 2007, George W. Bush got 437 words. See a problem?
Bush's words shared the segment with two guests who refuted the claims he made in his speech. Barack's words shared the segment with pre-taped (before the speech was given) bland statements from Afghans. We're not criticizing the Afghans, we are noting that Barack's lies were not challenged in the segment that feature them -- the segment that allowed him 100 more words than George Bush was allowed -- and note, Bush didn't just speak about a surge, he spoke about going after Iran and Syria in the same speech and that's part of what Goodman included in her broadcast.
There are many interesting differences in the way Goodman handled a 'surge' December 2, 2009 and the way she did on January 11, 2007.
For example, Leslie Cagan stated, "This war has to end. It never should have started. It was a war totally based on lies. It has to end. It has to end now." Sadly, Leslie wasn't talking about Afghanistan last week, she was a guest on the 2007 show. To clarify, Leslie wouldn't have said a damn thing like that if she'd been a guest on last week's show. She's a Whore for Barack. The Cult of St. Barack.
So instead we got Andrew Bacevich 'bravely' declaring, "I would argue that today President Obama has been similarly ill-served by equally unimaginative advisers: people like National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- all of whom I think adhere to an existing consensus with regard to national security policy, a consensus that was affirmed and strengthened as a consequence of the 9/11 attacks and which to the present moment, at least within Washington, among our leading politicians, has not been questioned despite the failures of the past eight or so years." That's a lot of words from a man who voted for George W. Bush and spent the 90s crucifying Bill and Hillary Clinton to anyone who'd listen. Yeah, so it's not surprising that in Bacevich's mind, the people to attack are Hillary and everyone except Barack who's been "ill-served". Ill-served by whom?
By the people he selected?
Can't state that. Barack As Victim requires that he always be robbed of agency, that he always be the powerless victim.
Barack made the decision he wanted to make. He made the decision and all the conservatives who put Bush into office can sharpen their knives for Hillary one damn more time but it won't change the fact that it was Barack's decision. It won't change the fact that Bacevich is a pathetic excuse for a man.
He was joined by another, Nir Rosen, looking like Mike Meyers in The Love Guru and pandering like crazy with statements such as, "Even if Obama hadn't wanted to escalate the troops, he is under so much political pressure that he would of had to, but I would have at least liked to hear the words Kashmir and Palestine." Again, he's robbed of agency. Poor Barack, "under so much political pressure." Ourselves, we never cared about any real or imagined "political pressure" Bush was under and we don't give a damn about it with Barack.
You go out for a job and you don't know what the job entails? That's your problem. You know what it entails ahead of time? Then stop sniveling and whining and do your damn job.
Basically, Decmember 2nd was Goody airing a two-years-plus-old program but air brushing out various details. She retouched all the truth.
For example, not only was Barack never called out but they never noted any actions to protest the "surge." Despite the fact that actions were being called. Despite the fact that actions took place while Barack was delivering the speech.
The George Soros Collective has ruled: There will be no blame for the "surge" in Afghanistan unless we can push it onto Hillary, there will be no acknowledgments of anger or objections and we will not inform the people of any events to protest.
Last week, Congress was underwhelmed by the response from the public to the news of Barack's planned "surge." Why was that?
Because they were repeatedly instructed not to be outraged, urged to feel sorry for Poor Little Barry and never informed of any real objections. Only abstractions like an Afghan speaking weeks ago about the Afghanistan War. There was no acknowledgment of the outrage, no method to address it.
Last week was a study of suppression and of media manipulation. It can best be seen as a population experiment and you got a good look at who's working for you (Dennis Bernstein and the crew at KPFA's Flashpoints Radio being among the few who are) and who's working for everyone else. But that's another story.