IN YET ANOTHER BLOW TO CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, YOUNG VOTERS RANK AMERICA'S PRINCESS EVEN LOWER THAN OTHER VOTING GROUPS.
44% CALL BARRY O A FAILURE ON THE ECONOMY WHILE 31% (PRESUMABLY GENERAL STUDIES MAJORS) THINK HE'S DOING AN OKAY JOB.
INFORMED BY THESE REPORTERS THAT HE HAD LOST HIS LEAD IN YOUTH VOTERS, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O STOMPED HIS FEET AND VOWED TO "SHIP THEIR ASSES OVERSEAS TO ONE OF MY MANY WARS. THAT'LL TEACH THEM!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Kevin Pina: What has he offered? What has President Obama put on the table in his speech yesterday?
This war-narrative is getting threadbare, however, and has some significant gaps: suddenly, we are told that, seemingly out of nowhere, "our focus shifted," and "a second war was launched" – apparently all by itself, by means of spontaneous combustion. One hardly expects him to mention of the key role played by his own party, which stood by and cowered -- or cheered -- as George W. Bush led the nation down into the quagmire, banners flying. But the distancing act -- "by the time I took office" – is a little too glib: Bush gets all the blame for Iraq, and the decision to escalate the Afghan war is pushed off on "our military commanders." But isn't Obama the commander-in-chief?
Our president, a prisoner of history, bravely confronts circumstances shaped by others. He praises himself for making "one of the most difficult decisions I've made as President," the launching of the "surge" in which 30,000 more troops were sent to the supposedly neglected Afghan front. "We set clear objectives," he avers, and yet our ultimate goal was -- and still is -- obscured in murk: does anyone, including the President, know what victory looks like?
The president couldn't have chosen worse words Wednesday as a framework for announcing a minimal troop withdrawal from Afghanistan: "The light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance."
Shades of Lyndon Johnson, linked forever to the "light at the end of the tunnel" he sought to show a press and public increasingly and properly wary of our war in Vietnam. That war, fought on behalf of a corrupt regime with our military's hands tied, would go on for another half-dozen years after Johnson's public-relations campaign on behalf of futility and 60,000 American deaths before we abandoned the place amid chaos.
Scott Horton: My first question, if it's alright, is going to be about the sujbect of your book there, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the future of Iraq and whether or not that includes the American occupation after the end of this year which is the deadline for withdrawal in the Status Of Forces Agreement. I'm sure you're aware that the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration have made it pretty clear that they want Malki to "invite us" to stay longer. I just wonder, of course, you've always told me on this show is that Moqtada al-Sadr is the answer to that question. Is that still the case and is his position still the same?
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Thug Nouri and First Lady Moqtada"
"I Hate The War"
"Meatloaf in the Kitchen"
"A political declaration"
"3 men, 3 women"
"6 men, no women"
"stevie nicks rocks europe"
"Does The NewsHour exist to amuse itself?"
"When Tom Hanks blusters . . ."
"WSWS always beats Socialist Worker"
"The Next Three Days"
"Don't tell about Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Canada in Distress"
"Thoughts on the war lust"
"Comic Book movies that need to be made"
"Mr. Roboto goes home"
"THIS JUST IN! HE VISITS HIS RELATIVES!"