RUSH IS RIGHT-Iraq Study Group Report Is A Cover Doc For American Surrender (Lawrence O'Donnell)

[kpete]

Lawrence O'Donnell
12.14.2006
Rush Is Right

Rush Limbaugh is vexed by the Iraq Study Group. At first, Rush said the group's report was not a cut and run prescription. He now says, "This is cut and run, surrender without the words." And, now, Rush is right.

The Iraq Study Group's report is a very respectable cover document for American surrender in Iraq.

America never formally surrenders, so we have to call surrender something else. In Vietnam, we called it Vietnamization. Henry Kissinger spent years negotiating the terms of our surrender there and ended up with a deal that he could have gotten on the first day he went to work in the Nixon White House--the Americans leave and North Vietnam wins. The Iraq Study Group delivered a plan for the Iraqization of the combat--complete the "training" of the Iraqi "army" and "police," then embed some American officers with Iraqi units and wish them luck as the bulk of the American forces sneak out the back door without anyone ever using the word surrender. This is exactly what most of the American people are looking for--a way out of Iraq without calling it surrender. The Iraq Study Group has mapped it out for us very nicely, and Rush is trying to ruin it for us by calling a surrender plan a surrender plan. It is downright un-American of him. Being American means you never have to say you surrender.

more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rush-is-right_b_36325.html

[Mrspeeker]

1. Naa...

Rush is never right LoL...just plain WRONG!

[zbdent]

2. Well, Rush said that, in 2000, Bush won the election and

had a mandate ...

Just two of billions ...

[Tom Joad]

3. The point we should make is that the US is losing in Iraq, and it is a GOOD thing.

defeat of imperialist ambitions is a good thing.

[rodeodance]

4. Rush will be so pleased he is right on!

[JohnnyLib2]

5. "Rush is right" --damn, kpete, my blood pressure skyrocketed!

LOL, O'Donnell makes sense to me. Ol' Rush speaks for the chickenhawks once again, from the safety of his own cushy situation. Jerk.

[Tyo]

6. What surrender?

Junior's stated goal was to overthrow Saddam and destroy his goverment before he could nail us with all those (non-existent) WMDs. So by the administration's own standard we won a long time ago. What we are doing now is talking about ending an occupation, which I don't think is the same thing as surrendering. To whom would we be surrendering?

[Morgana LaFey]

10. Further, who would we surrender T0?

It's not as if there's one cohesive, national force there.

Further still, if one side "surrenders" in a war, the winning side gets to determine the terms of cease fire, what happens to the surrendering (losing) side and their troops and arms and supplies, etc. That's not gonna happen in this case either.

You're entirely right -- it's not surrender it's just saying "I quit" and walking away.

[AnnInLa]

11. Really.

Maybe the generals/army that is leading the Terrorists? Since we have a War on Terror....and all that.

[MGKrebs]

7. Well I don't think al Sadr is going to sign surrender papers

on the deck of an aircraft carrier, if that is what they are looking for. There was never going to be a "victory" here that anyone could identify precisely.

[Tyo]

9. The goal was to get him before he got us

And we achieved that, even though the Bushies knew that he could never have "gotten" us in the first place. We freed Iraq from Saddam, we brought down the Iraqi government. Victory, end of story.

What came after that was a civil war with us in the middle. We can't win or lose someone else's civil war. We can, however, leave and let the two sides settle it themselves.

[ComerPerro]

8. and we have to surrender for the same reason we did in Vietnam

becasue RW warmongers who profit so much from wars refuse to make sacrifices, and young conservatives refuse to fight and defend Amderica.