Phyllis Bennis who showed up at ZNet Friday with "Obama To Announce Iraq Troop Withdrawal."
Among other things she writes:
Those troops won't include officially-designated "combat" troops (though can you imagine any U.S. soldier in Iraq who doesn't think she or he is facing the trauma of combat on a daily basis??). But those tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq. According to General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq, U.S. strategy "will require a significant number of troops to train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets." Other officials speak of the plan to leave behind "intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft." And that's just the part that they're making public.
There's also another problem. That huge contingent of "non-combat" troops that is left behind after the pull-out of official combat troops might actually include a whole bunch of combat troops. How? Well, the New York Times spelled it out last Dec. 4: "Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama's goal [of pulling out combat troops] could be accomplished at least in part by re-labeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis." They would do what combat troops do, they would walk and talk and bomb and shoot like combat troops. But they wouldn't be called combat troops, so they could stay in Iraq.
Wow, Phyll. That was news. Back in December. See the December 4th "Iraq snapshot" and "Mark the calendar, New York Times provides some truths" -- Jeremy Scahill obviously did to read his little rip-off "This (Old) News Just In . . . Obama Doesn't Plan to End the Iraq Occupation." He posted that at Aging Socialite Cat Litter's Box December 5th, the day after the article was in print despite his telling use of "is reporting" to describe a day-old report. Those who can do; those who can't rip off.
And while Jeremy and Phyllis have given Barack plenty of cover, while they've each reached a hand down his pants while the other hands held their own tongues, Iraq fell off the radar and Barack was able to lie. You are responsible Phyllis Bennis and Jeremy Scahill. You refused to be the voices you present yourself as, voices who call out War Hawks.
Phyll goes on to insist, "According to the U.S. agreement with Iraq - known as a SOFA, or status of forces agreement and signed by a reluctant and defeated White House in the last days of the Bush administration -- they couldn't stay in Iraq indefinitely." Bold faced, bulls**t lie. Whacked Out Patrick Cockburn is among the ones who have pushed that lie. The White House was not reluctant to sign that -- nor were they defeated.
Phyll, if you can quit smoking Barack's BVDs for a minute, the White House didn't have to sign it. They could have gone to the UN. You stupid, lying idiot, get your damn facts straight.
This isn't unlike when a year after Nancy Youssef reported the US military was keeping figures on Iraqi deaths, you showed up on CounterSpin suddenly having just discovered that bit of information.
Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack.
The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution.
Now in Iraq, where the Parliament finally passed the treaty on Thanksgiving Day, you had a record low turnout in the Parliament, you had MPs leaving the country to avoid voting on the controversial treaty. You had Ryan Crocker and others not only strong-arming for votes but strong-arming for the votes to take place.
So get your damn facts straight, Phyll.
Know what the hell you're talking about.
The Bush White House did not work overtime on anything. They didn't even work on anything unless they wanted something very badly. They worked like crazy to get the treaty rammed through the Iraqi Parliament. They refused the Democratic demand to extend the UN mandate for six months.
Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality.
Phyllis goes not to pant, "Three months difference in the pull-out timetable (a timetable! remember the Bush rejection of timetables until Iraqi pressure forced the issue in his last days in office??) is of relatively little significance." Uh, Phyll, three months does matter.
It matters because (a) it's breaking a promise, (b) that's at least 90 days more that US service members and Iraqis remain at risk because of the US involvement and (c) Barack's lying again.
The press is helping him. As usual, Ava and C.I. talk about what Phyll and others won't. See, in April 2008, Barack promised that troops would be withdrawn in 16 months if he was elected. He promised that and Charlie Gibson asked him about it. Barack was very clear that the mission he would task the military was 16 months and they could add input and suggestions on how to best achieve that but that, as president, he would set the mission and it would be 16 months.
He didn't keep his promise. He's lying. People are risking their lives and, as Phyllis finally grasps, the Iraq War is not ending.
Phyllis, you're a tool and a fool and the world can't afford either.
Stop lying. Stop embarrassing yourself. You're on the edge of Tom Hayden Foolery and, as yet, there's no known cure for anyone who reaches that stage.
----------
Note: Ava and C.I. did not work on the writing of this article.
