Kucinich: 'You can't be in & out at the same time' - The War in Iraq has entered a New Stage of PR

[kpete]

The War in Iraq has entered a New Stage of Public Relations

Rep. Dennis Kucinich

U.S. House Representative
Posted: August 19, 2010 04:57 PM

Who is in charge of our operations in Iraq, now? George Orwell? A war based on lies continues to be a war based on lies. Today, we have a war that is not a war, with combat troops who are not combat troops. In 2003, President Bush said 'Mission Accomplished'. In 2010, the White House says combat operations are over in Iraq, but will leave 50,000 troops, many of whom will inevitably be involved in combat-related activities.

Just seven days ago, General Babaker Shawkat Zebari, the commander of Iraq's military, said that Iraq's security forces will not be trained and ready to take over security for another 10 years. One story is being told to the military on the ground in Iraq and another story is being told to their families back home.

You can't be in and out at the same time.

This is not the end of the war; this is simply a new stage in the campaign to lull the American people into accepting an open-ended presence in Iraq. This is not an honest accounting to the American people and it diminishes the role of the troops who will put their lives on the line. This is not fair to the troops, their families or the American people.

................

more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/the-war-in-iraq-has-enter_b_688218.html

[LWolf]

1. Who thinks the last American service person has died in Iraq?

With the Iraq war "over," we can expect an end to casualties there, right?

As usual, Kucinich is correct.

The message police are the enemy of the truth.

[pocoloco]

64. Damn sure didn't expect the costs to go up???

[snot]

2. K&R'd.

The unreccer's are out in force.

[dmallind]

3. So the Korean war is still going? WW2 never ended?

Why can't people wait and see what happens, how many hostile incidents occur involving US troops, and whether they were offensive or defensive (US military personnel have killed and been killed in Korea long after 1953), rather than making blanket assumptions that a war only ends when there are no US soldiers at all in a country?

Bookmark this for a six month review folks. If US military deaths are not down 75% or more from the last six months in Iraq g then I will agree they are still in a war. Wioll you agree they are not if deaths do dramatically decline?

[jonnyblitz]

4. yeah, the daily korean body count is pretty massive.

:rofl: damn those IED's going off all over Seoul!!11 :sarcasm: you people are a fucking trip.

[dmallind]

5. Which would be sensible if we knew what the daily body count in Iraq will be

Care to make a wager and see who is closest, or does your "fucking trip" not back up your "fucking mouth" like most pontificators before the event?


Are you the one DU know it all with the courage of your convictions I've been looking for for so long? How much?

[JonLP24]

6. Wager on percentage of lives that will be lost???

[frylock]

22. wow..

just fucking wow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. The daily body count of U.S. troops lost in Iraq is zero.

The daily body count of Iraqis killed by U.S. troops in Iraq is zero.

[druidity33]

41. yeah right. waste of time replying. nt.

[xocet]

48. I am sure that these people will be happy to find out that the daily body count is zero.

Date--------------Country------------Name---------------Rank--------------Age------Cause

8-19-2010------------US----------Wright, Christopher------Not yet reported-----0-------Hostile - hostile fire

8-15-2010------------US----------Rhett, Jamal M.----------Specialist------------24------Hostile - hostile fire - grenade

8-07-2010------------US----------Hinkley, Faith R.---------Specialist------------23------Hostile - hostile fire

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/Fatalities.aspx

People are not statistics.

[LostinVA]

42. Jonny is a vet, he doesn't "wager" on the death of soldiers

WTF is wrong with you for even suggesting something like that???

[Iggo]

50. You didn't just offer to bet on the lives of soldiers, didja?

Yikes!

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. +1

:thumbsup:

[YankmeCrankme]

24. Yes, the Korean war is still going.

No military battles are being fought because there is a truce in place and has been for many decades. Secondly, we don't occupy S. Korea. We have military units stationed there for defense against external enemies, not internal insurgents. Lastly, we don't have the run of the country. Our troops do not have immunity from the laws of S. Korea while in that country. Our troops do not patrol their streets, do not man check points within the country against S. Koreans, we don't no have rules of engagement against S. Koreans. I could go on but you should get the picture.

Also, WWII did end. We won and were able to dictate terms of surrender to the legitimate government of Nazi Germany and Japan. Under those terms of surrender we forced them to accept the occupation of their country, the de-nazification of Germany and the establishment of a new government that was based in democracy and had them write a new constitution. Our occupation troops left and due to the threat of the USSR the NATO member Germany allowed us to man military bases to help against any aggression from outside enemies. They, like S. Korea, have restrictions on what they can do and are bound by the laws of the host countries.

Germany, S. Korea and Japan are not analogous to Iraq in any way, shape or form. Germany declared war on us, Japan attacked us and S. Korea requested help from the U.N. against N. Korea aggression.

[Greyhound]

39. How refreshing, thank you. n/t

[Ticonderoga]

44. Approx. 100,000 mercenaries

remain in country whose deaths the DOD are not compelled to disclose. Kabuki theater folks.

[dflprincess]

78. And tax money will continue to be used to pay private companies for the contractors

as we continue to protect the infrastruture there so we can't afford to repair it here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Technically, the Korean war ISN'T over -

There was never an armistice, never a treaty, just a cessation of active hostilities which DO flare up at irregular intervals. And because that war is on-going, we have troops there in case of a big flare up.

And your definition really sucks. By your lights we were never at war in Iraq, because our casualty rate was so low - why we'd have as many casualties in a day in Vietnam as we'd have in a month in Iraq - and Vietnam wasn't really a war at all - only 50,000 dead over 11 years? Now, WW2, THAT was a war! A hundred thousand dead for each year.

I don't care if casualties drop of 20/mo to 20 in 6 months - as long as there is a hostile force shooting at our troops WE ARE AT WAR.

[tomp]

47. "we" are the hostile force.

it is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE for iraqis to be shooting at us. we unjustly and illegally invaded their country causing untold casualties and suffering far in excess of what "we" have suffered.

there is NOTHING legitimate about our presence there and there never will be.

[howaboutme]

7. So who thinks that the Iraq War was for defending America?

Who thinks that the Iran War will be next? America needs to grounded in America instead of being a war puppet policeman for internationalist neocons. We've had too many wars where young Americans have given their lives for the corrupt greedy war profiteering elitists and while average Americans have been massively indebted. We need to eliminate entangling alliances and work to regain our nation.

[ixion]

8. And don't forget about that 'superbase' that was built...

you think we're just going to walk away from that?

[Frisbee]

54. I Haliburton built it...

it might be less expensive than the cost of maintaining it.

[NorthCarolina]

9. K&R

[Ignis]

10. K&R

Great article.

[sabrina 1]

11. You can always count on Dennis to speak the truth.

I just read that the private army of mercenaries, already huge in Afghanistan, will now be doubled in Iraq. So that 'money for the troops' is really money for the 'mercenaries'.

I know, we are supposed to call them 'contractors' so people will think they are building things.

I believe the reason we are leaving 50,000 combat troops in Iraq, is because according to the law, our private army, or 'contractors' cannot be justified unless they are 'servicing the troops'.

All that money going to Iraq now will be going into the hands of private contractors, hiring killers from wherever they can find them. And they are not all American contractors. The U.S. has awarded contracts to British Mercenaries and to others, and some of their employees are from some of the worst dictatorships in the world.

The whole thing stinks, I don't know how Dennis doesn't lose his cool, seeing so clearly and having to listen to his colleagues either lie to uphold the fake image, or remain silent.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Good for Kucinich. I wish he would have mentioned the mercenaries.

How many are in Iraq? How much do they cost?

[PufPuf23]

33. Mercenaries should be against the law

and there should be a fair draft.

[LostinVA]

43. +1

[lob1]

70. During Viet Nam, I was very much against the draft.

The Bush Wars have changed my mind, tho. During Nam, people saw their own kids being drafted, killed and maimed in a senseless war. (Anyone remember what it was about?) Everyone knew someone that was serving, and that affected how people thought of the war. It took a while, but republicans with kids in Nam were out protesting with us Lefties. We can't protest and be meaningful when our troops have volunteered. And mercenaries are an abomination. I now believe we have more sway over our government with a draft. It would have to be a fair draft, tho. No deferments like warmonger Dick Cheney got. Deferments serve to extend the war.

[bigwillq]

14. K and R (nt)

[democrank]

15. Correct once again, Mr. K

[RetroLounge]

16. K&R

for a little truth.

RL

[mzmolly]

17. *yawn

:eyes:

[Desertrose]

18. Your yawn makes me yawn.

Too predictable.

[mzmolly]

19. .

:nopity:

[nashville_brook]

28. ...

:freak:

[nashville_brook]

27. damn, now i'm yawning. i hate it when that happens.

:evilgrin:

[mzmolly]

32. At least

I didn't sneeze. ;)

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Appalling!

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

29. Probably not your best response ever.

I know for a fact that you can do better.

[mzmolly]

31. So can Dennis

unfortunately. He's become quite predictable.

[Binka]

38. You Quote Conrad

Do you understand what he meant? Obviously not. Ignore for the fool.

[mzmolly]

59. I'm not quoting anyone. The yawn, is mine.

Further, no one said we were "out" of Iraq. What has been stated is that we have ended the combat mission. Rachel Maddow who is in Iraq stated "the war is over." I defer to her.

[bvar22]

60. "we have ended the combat mission"

"Major combat missions have ended."

[mzmolly]

63. So you're saying that Obama = Bush?

Really?

"Major combat missions" vs. the combat mission period, and a completely different source. Again, I defer to Rachel Maddow who said "the war is over" while sitting on the sand, in Iraq.

[bvar22]

69. No.

...and for your personal growth,
almost every reply that begins with "So you are saying..." is a Strawman, which is TRUE in the case of your post.
No Charge.

I do NOT think Obama = Bush.
Nobody I know or care to talk to believes that Obama = Bush.
I DO believe that in too many areas, Obama Policy is a continuation of Bush Policy, or too close to Republican Policy to represent much difference.


What I am saying is I don't trust the MIC no matter which party is in power.

Even you would have to admit that the two quotes are similar?

Deja Vu?

[mzmolly]

73. I admit the quotes are similar, but the men are not.

Thus my question to you. I am aware that you consider the two parties one in the same, I on the other hand do not. Neither did the guy in your sig line Bvar.

[dflprincess]

81. But he worried that might change

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

And since his death it has.

[mzmolly]

85. Wellstone

was noting what was has been an issue within the party for years. He knew that politics is local.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/nader_10-24.html

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: "You know, I think you do focus on ordinary people, but I think that what we're saying is, if you live in Texas, Jim, go ahead and vote for Ralph. But in states where it's going to be close, if you care about the environment and if you care about economic justice, whether or not there's more investment in education and kids and health care, and if you care about reform, and if you care about a Supreme Court that will respect the right of women to choose, and a Supreme Court that won't overthrow much of the work that we've done in our lives, then you're going to vote for Vice President Gore. That's what this election is about. I'm for Ralph doing well up to the point that this means that George W. Bush gets elected president. You don't want George W. Bush and his supporters in control of national government. The differences make a difference, especially for the lives of ordinary citizens in America. I'm sorry, Jim, when it comes to Head Start, or child care, or kids in school, or prescription drugs for elderly people, those are important issues to people's lives. I don't think you want to see a vote for Ralph becoming a vote for George W. Bush."

Paul Wellstone NEVER said the two parties are the essentially the same. He NEVER suggested we ignore the important differences that make a difference.

[dflprincess]

98. I never said Wellstone said we should ignore the differences

in the two parties traditional positions. He was exhorting the Democrats not to abandon their principles.

I pointed out that he was concerned about elements within the Democratic party that want to do just that by becoming "kinder, gentler Republicans". Sadly, that group seems to be gaining ground.

[mzmolly]

99. Wellstone clarified that he supported Democrats over Republicans period. He did not use the term

"traditional positions." He directly took on Nader, and asked that progressives vote for Al Gore. In fact, he used the term "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." He was right.

I disagree that conservative forces are gaining ground within the Democratic Party. Look at the Presidency of JFK, for example. Certainly he was to the right of Barack Obama, as was Bill Clinton.

[bvar22]

86. Again, you persist with the Strawman Fallacy.

I do NOT consider "the two parties one in the same".
THAT is a complete and utter FALSEHOOD
and those who perpetuate that FALSEHOOD are NOT interested in any HONEST discussion of the issues.

[me b zola]

100. This isn't about the men (bush* & Obama) its about the policies n/t

[mzmolly]

102. Which differ under the two

men.

[Forkboy]

53. Looks like predictability is catching on.

[bvar22]

61. Yes. You can count on Dennis to be consistent.

You will never find Dennis to be AGAINST the War on one day,
and FOR it on the next.



"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[mzmolly]

65. As such he should celebrate its

end.

[frylock]

23. money

knr

[ipaint]

25. The oil companies need their newly aquired assests protected.

including Halliburton while they fulfill the contract to build 15 wells.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Smedley Butler

Same old, same old.

[Zorra]

91. Bing-effin-o. The war is over. Iraq is conquered and colonized.

By oil companies, as well as do the many other types of multi-national enterprises that are nesting and spinning their webs there. They need protection now.

Making Iraq safe for multi-national corporations was 99% of the motivation behind the conquest of Iraq.

[nashville_brook]

26. off message!!!

:spank:

[slay]

30. Dennis nails it as usual

this, like many of Obama's "wins" are wayyyyy more PR than substance. It's bullshit. :grr:

[PufPuf23]

34. Sadly POTUS Obama and Team define their victories

as "wins" regardless of the content.

Neo-liberal and Neo-con foreign policy is not that much different.

I favored Obama over Clinton because I thought Clinton to much the hawk.

Obama kept the GWB era military leaders and has expanded military in Africa and Latin America as well as AfPak.

[jeanpalmer]

35. The challenge is becoming

finding a country where there are no US troops. The MIC is firmly in control. Kudos to Dennis telling it like it is.

[PufPuf23]

37. DU ignores the increased military foot prints in Africa and Latin America.

There are knowledgable liberal posters that are steadfast in relating reality and also reactionaries that are willing to support continued or expanded Authoritism, economic colonialism, and violent right wing leadership (and still call themselves liberals and Democrats).

[jeanpalmer]

40. Central Asia too

It's clear now that Obama is a big supporter of the MIC, and of the empire. There's really no drop-off from GWB; more like an all around increase in support. I don't know how real Democrats can support it or support Obama who authorizse the dirty work. It's nothing more than killing people for their oil and other resources.

We need a new President who will make the necessary changes. The hundreds of billions Obama is spending on defense is wasted spending. It's taking money away from SS, Medicare and other needed social spending. The Catfood Commission is going to increase SS and Medicare taxes and reduce benefits so the MIC can be fully funded. This is bullshit. I hold Obama completely responsible for it. He's making some really bad choices.

[amborin]

36. knr

[hippywife]

46. k&r

Kucinich is right, and has always been right!

[earth mom]

49. War is Peace-Peace is War. That's the way the powers that be roll.

Sickening ain't it? :puke:

[South End Liberal]

51. No end to the war? The Post thinks so.

The Post also notes that “About 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, mainly as a training force”, and concedes that “There might never be an acknowledged end to the Iraq war – a moment where it ceases being America’s conflict.”


THERE MIGHT NEVER BE AN ACKNOWLEDGED END TO THE IRAQ WAR.


Military Industrial Complex: 1
We the People: 0

[yella_dawg]

52. PR?

Dennis, I'm sorry. The proper term is propaganda. Let's keep this honest, please?

[DeSwiss]

56. +1

[bullsnarfle]

55. Revolving door wars?

Anybody want to guess how many of those troops who ARE coming home from Iraq get handed orders to Afghanistan before they can even get their bags unpacked?

[DeSwiss]

57. K&R n/t

[ProSense]

58. The troop that left are in and out

They're out. Juan Cole has a good piece here

[lob1]

74. They're out of Iraq, but they're being sent to

Afganistan, according to at least one troop interviewed on MSNBC during the withdrawal. They'll going home for 6 months, then off to Afganistan.

[fogonthelake]

62. Some folks allow themselves to be lulled....

................
This is not the end of the war; this is simply a new stage in the campaign to lull the American people into accepting an open-ended presence in Iraq. This is not an honest accounting to the American people and it diminishes the role of the troops who will put their lives on the line. This is not fair to the troops, their families or the American people.

[Desertrose]

71. Good point....

but then the truth usually is.....

[Individualist]

66. K&R

[savalez]

67. US Military Deployments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

[jgraz]

68. Thank you, Dennis.

The hype over this fake withdrawal is insane.

[OnyxCollie]

75. Hype for (fake) change.

Hype over fake stimulus
Hype over fake health care reform
Hype over fake withdrawal

I just want to know if chocolate rations are going up.

[dflprincess]

82. My mother and another 86 year old she was talking to at in the doctor's waiting room today

agreed they'd believe the war was over when they see a block long conga line on Hennepin Avenue in downtown Minneapolis.

[ProSense]

72. The war is over

and Kucinich has to come to grips with the fact that it is

There is no war in Iraq. There are 50,000 U.S. troops still occupying the country, but they are not fighting a war.

[jgraz]

76. Complete bullshit.

Oh look! I have my own little blue link.

Of course, I also have the manners to pull a quote from the source I'm linking to:

Five myths about the Iraq troop withdrawal

By Kenneth M. Pollack
Sunday, August 22, 2010

<snip>
1. As of this month, the United States no longer has combat troops in Iraq.

Not even close. Roughly 50,000 American military personnel remain in Iraq, and the majority are still combat troops -- they're just named something else. The major units still in Iraq will no longer be called "brigade combat teams" and instead will be called "advisory and assistance brigades." But a rose by any other name is still a rose, and the differences in brigade structure and personnel are minimal.

American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as "advisers." American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full "battle rattle" and ready for a fight.

More at washingtonpost.com.

[ProSense]

79. Really, the war wasn't a failure? Also, from your link

Be very, very careful with Iraqi public opinion. Polls are rarely subtle enough to capture the complexity of Iraqi views. Typically, they show a small number of Iraqis who want the Americans out immediately at any cost, a small number who want them to stay forever and a vast majority in the middle -- determined that U.S. troops should leave, but only after a certain period of time. When Iraqis are asked how long they believe our troops are needed, their answers range from a few months to a few years, but are strongly linked with however long the respondent believes it will take Iraq's forces to be able to handle security on their own.

One typically hears the same from people across Iraq and throughout its social and political strata. Iraqis are nationalistic, and they resent the American military presence. Many also feel deep bitterness over the mess that the United States made by invading and then failing to secure the country or to begin a comprehensive rebuilding process, failures that led to civil war in 2005-2006. Most Iraqis are relieved to have been rescued from that descent and are frightened that it will resume when the Americans leave. This is because their security forces are still untested and their political process has yet to show the kind of maturity that provides Iraqis confidence that they are safe from the threat of more civil war. Consequently, a great many people are both determined to see all American troops leave -- and terrified that they actually will.

Which is exactly what Perry states with more specificity.


Also from your link:

American troops in Iraq will still go into harm's way. They will still accompany Iraqi units on combat missions -- even if only as "advisers." American pilots will still fly combat missions in support of Iraqi ground forces. And American special forces will still face off against Iraqi terrorist groups in high-intensity operations. For that reason, when American troops leave their bases in Iraq, they will still, almost invariably, be in full "battle rattle" and ready for a fight.

Maybe you should take note of the WH's Facts and Figures on Drawdown in Iraq.

You call BS, but the facts are there: The war is a failure, the President did withdraw the troops promised and the only way to dispute the information coming out of the WH is to try to spin it by claiming they're saying something different.

On edit, thanks for the link to the Brookings Institution's point of view. I'm sure you will love them as they continue to push for a longer presense:

Going forward, America's involvement in Iraq can (and hopefully will ) be much reduced, but the need for a U.S. presence will endure for many years. Iraq has demonstrated great potential, but at this point it is only potential. The country still holds great peril as well -- not just for Iraqis, but for our interests in one of the world's most strategically important regions.

For these reasons, Obama was right to also warn that the United States will need to remain deeply involved in Iraq and will probably face casualties therein the years to come, regardless of how we label our mission there.

[jgraz]

83. I know this is tough for you, but please try to stay on topic.

Are all combat troops out of Iraq as the President claims, or are they not?

[ProSense]

84. Is this true:

When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. At his Camp Lejeune speech on February 27, 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would end its combat mission on August 31, 2010, and retain a transitional force of up to 50,000 U.S. troops to train and advise Iraqi Security Forces; conduct partnered and targeted counter-terrorism operations; and protect ongoing U.S. civilian and military efforts.

link

Do you dispute that?

[jgraz]

87. Here's what's not true: your claim that "the war is over".

And no distraction you throw up will change that hard fact.

[ProSense]

88. There is no war

Where is the war?

There is a war in Afghanistan, but some of the same people claiming that there is a war in Iraq say what's going on in Afghanistan isn't a war.

There is no war in Iraq.

[jgraz]

90. Congratulations on going Full Metal Orwell

I know you've been working toward this goal for years.

[frylock]

93. FMO..

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[jgraz]

89. .

[frylock]

92. we've never been at war with east iraqia

[alsame]

94. Wow. What disrespect for the troops left behind,

trivializing the danger they are in. Wow.

[jgraz]

95. No kidding.

As if we needed more proof that these troops are just political pawns to some people. :puke:

[alsame]

96. Yesterday's talking point was that leaving those troops

behind is "just like we still have troops in Germany and Japan."

Sure it is.

[jgraz]

97. I'm sure those folks have already booked their Baghdad vacations

:eyes:

[TheKentuckian]

77. Dennis is too soft. He needs to make it clear that if we're paying for mercenaries then the war is

on.

[fogonthelake]

101. ah, but they are saying it is less expensive for taxpayers. Yes,

they did say that. Its a failed excuse in my book.

[leeroysphitz]

80. Iraq Holdings L.L.C is now a subsidiary of America Inc. after a protracted hostile buyout

Or maybe Iraq is actually now a Colony of the United States! American Iraq. If we stay there long enough It could be brought into th Union as the fifty first state (ooh tough luck Puerto Rico try finding some oil and try again in a decade or two...).