Obama and Hillary Spin a 'Big Lie' About Iraq

[laststeamtrain]

Obama and Hillary Spin a 'Big Lie' About Iraq
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on April 5, 2008, Printed on April 5, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/81251/

The cable news networks are happy to spend hours on the latest silly campaign squabble but can't bring themselves to point out the plain fact that the two Democratic nominees are lying, blatantly, to the American people about one of the most important issues facing the country today.

On the stump, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are crystal clear in their rhetoric about Iraq. In a statement released on the occasion of the 4,000th U.S. combat death in Iraq, Clinton said, "I have made promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely." Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign piped in with an even more definitive statement: "It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home."

On the campaign trail, the two candidates often speak of bringing the troops home and ending the war, and Democratic primary voters, 80 percent of whom want U.S. troops out of Iraq within 12 months, reward them with boisterous applause.

It's a Big Lie, and everyone who follows the debates over U.S. policy towards Iraq knows it, but refuses to call the candidates on it. Both Clinton and Obama (PDF) have been very clear -- in the fine print -- about the fact that they will leave a significant number of "residual forces" in Iraq, albeit with a more limited mission than the Bush administration has pursued. They would protect U.S. infrastructure and personnel -- Obama says "the U.S. embassy" -- train Iraqi forces and retain a rapid-response force to conduct "limited counter-terrorism" missions.

Although the candidates refuse to specify the exact scope and length of that mission, independent analysts say that it would require at least 40,000 and as many as 75,000 soldiers and marines. When one looks at the big picture, the end game appears to be a significant draw-down of troops -- with as many as 100,000 sent home or redeployed to Afghanistan, where thin NATO troops are struggling to contain a re-emergent Taliban -- calling a halt to most combat operations and patrols, and dismantling most or all U.S. bases outside of Baghdad.

They would, however, maintain the infrastructure of the U.S. occupation and provide the forces necessary to do so. As the Nation's Jeremy Scahill told Amy Goodman,

"Both intend to keep the Green Zone intact. Both of them intend to keep the current U.S. embassy project, which is slated to be the largest embassy in the history of the world ... And they're also going to keep open the Baghdad airport indefinitely."

<more>

http://www.alternet.org/election08/81251/

[virtualobserver]

1. Scahill is wrong

Once we start drawing down troop levels, complete withdrawal will then be inevitable. The Green Zone isn't safe now. Imagine how it will be without our full presence there.

[AlertLurker]

2. You don't build 14 permanent bases just to walk away.

Not to mention the largest "embassy" in the entire fugging' WORLD. Since invading, the USA has had NO CHOICE but to stay. THEY have to control the flow of oil in the region, forever and ever, AMEN.

The USA's forces are going NOWHERE. How else to stage the strike on Iran???

[blondie58]

3. good point

but I have one question. If we are controlling the flow of oil in the region, when are we going to see the end result in the price paid at the pump?

[AlertLurker]

5. Probably NEVER.

The USA is CONTROLLING the flow - NOT consuming it. If you can DENY it to others (France, China, Russia, etc.), you have control. If you can deny DEMOCRACY to millions in the region by a strategy of fragmentation and "Balkanization" of cultures and peoples, you can control from the Med to the Arabian Sea, from the Black to the Caspian. Nobody's talking seriously about oil nationalization, or a Euro Oil Bourse while the US maintains such a stranglehold and such divisive policies.

[Riley133]

4. Canada is the largest oil importer - not Iraq

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[AlertLurker]

6. You are mistaken.

The data you provided is for US OIL IMPORTS BY COUNTRY.

And again, you do not have to USE the oil to control who gets it. Simply denying it to the third world is enough to control THEM.

[Riley133]

8. My apologies. nt

[AlertLurker]

12. No problem. There's another thing you probably don't realise, however:

If Canada actually WAS the largest Oil Importer, it would still have to EXPORT 70% of everything it imports to the USA, via the NAFTA Proportionality Clause...

I really hope that all the noise about an Iranian attack is just more FUD, though...

[virtualobserver]

9. the strike on Iran will occur before the next President takes office

Also, there is a huge difference between the desires of Cheney (and the permanent presence) and the reality of a crashing U.S. and World economy. Oil demand and prices will plummet and we will no longer be able to afford the luxury of bungled attempts to control the flow of oil.

[babylonsister]

11. Obama and Clinton didn't build those bases. Hopefully that will

be a secondary consideration. Hmmm. Do they own Halliburton stock?

[Riley133]

7. Kind of like evitable withdrawal in Korea, Japan and Germany? Scahill's correct. nt

[alarimer]

10. Fuck both of them.

Troops out NOW or I am not voting for them. The hell with these DINOS empty promises.