Tom Hayden, until recently, was--- admittedly--- a "poster boy" for Israel's killing machine.
Conveniently Tom Hayden emerged from his dark, dank cave about the same time Walter Mondale came out of his; just in time to give Obama a boost... two phony liberals trying to pose as progressives, joined by a few more rotten peas in the same moldy pod.
Hayden would like us to ignore the fact that American tax-payers have shelled out billions of dollars building permanent military bases in Iraq which Barack Obama has conveniently refused to discuss what is in store to be done with these bases in the future... perhaps they will be turned into shopping centers or industrial parks?
Of course, neither Hayden nor Obama mention the little issue of oil, either.
Nor do Tom Hayden or Obama mention the issue of U.S. regional domination in the Middle East --- apparently Hayden's new New Left philosophy omits any consideration that there is such a thing as U.S. imperialism.
Is there anyone except Tom Hayden and Barack Obama who actually believe oil and regional domination were not the primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq to begin with?
What will be the consequences should the U.S. peace movement buy into Hayden's and Obama's "peace" in Iraq?
The military-financial-industrial complex will think we are a bunch of chumps who have bought into Obama's new "politics of pragmatism;" nothing more than the same old ideology of U.S. imperialism packaged a little differently by Madison Avenue adding a Hollywood twist to keep the Wall Street bankers and coupon clippers rolling in the dough.
One prominent leader of the left with newly remodeled, million dollar glass offices towering over the city of New York who went all out to support Barack Obama has already said "we can disagree with President Obama without being disagreeable."
Yes, and Tom Hayden shows how this is done... in the days of the "old" left when the people's movements had some real clout capable of winning the New Deal, neither the leaders of the "People's Front" nor the "People's Lobby" ever capitulated to the capitalist sooth-Sayers or their Wall Street masters... sell-out and capitulation seem to go hand-in-hand with the new New Left... does anyone really want any part of Obama's "new" New Deal?
Perhaps we are better off struggling to defend and protect, building on and expanding the real New Deal.
In fact, the builders of the "People's Front" who were the real architects of the New Deal reforms did a pretty good job of building the "People's Lobby" which was a key component, along with the Communist Party USA, of the "People's Front;" these pioneers built a very firm progressive foundation upon which we can build our struggles for peace, social & economic justice--- which includes the struggle against U.S. imperialism, and not the kind of capitulation to U.S. imperialism that Tom "poster boy for Israel" Hayden envisions as "a victory for the peace movement."
I have news for Tom Hayden: The war in Iraq is part and parcel of "the long wars ahead;" the Middle East today can only be described as sitting upon a keg of powder getting ready to blow... it doesn't take a blaster from the Iron Range to understand the consequences.
The day the Israeli killing machine launched its murderous pogrom on the Palestinian people forced to live like dogs in Gaza Strip the fuse was lit... this fuse is not as long as the short, bumpy, tortuous road to perdition we are already on.
Fortunately, there are very few people other than a bunch of muddle-headed middle class intellectuals who write books and articles from million dollar glass offices who join Tom Hayden in proclaiming Barack Obama to be "the first peace president;" a very weird moniker for an imperialist warmonger employed by the Wall Street merchants of death and destruction who would sit in silence and watch as the Israeli butchers did their dirty deeds in Gaza Strip, and then turn around and lie about calling removing part of the troops in Iraq to maintain U.S. military bases built for something other than housing for troops to rest and relax on playing a little golf and shooting pool, while taking a break from fighting wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan... Obama calls this making good on his campaign pledge of "ending the war in Iraq?"
How much was Tom Hayden paid to write this? Who paid him?
Sellout and betrayal don't even begin to describe this article: "A Victory for the Peace Movement."
Hayden concludes his article:
"This is a clear victory for those in the peace movement who supported Obama as the first anti-war candidate with a chance to become president."
Yes, this probably is a "clear victory for those in the peace movement who supported Obama as the first anti-war candidate with a chance to become president;" unfortunately, Obama was no peace candidate and Obama is no anti-war President... sadder still, for the thousands of people who will continue to suffer and die in the war in Iraq and the associated imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, this is no victory for peace.
This group Tom Hayden helped to found is definitely for Obama just as definitely, they are not Progressives. Like Obama, they are progressive impostors.
Obama's "peace in Iraq" is as phony as his "stimulus package" these imperialist wars for oil and regional domination torpedoed before ever approved by Congress... both designed to line the pockets of the Wall Street crowd.
That the group "Progressives for Obama" has refused to support the "Minnesota People's Bailout" as a model for the Nation for the way out of this economic mess and as the way out of these imperialist wars by transferring money from military spending to meeting human needs says it all.
Yours in the struggle for peace and justice,
Alan L. Maki
Founder, Minnesotans for Peace and Social Justice
A Victory for the
Peace Movement
Now Prepare for
the Long Wars Ahead
By Tom Hayden
Progressives for Obama
After years of frustrating ambiguity, President Obama has clearly committed to a complete withdrawal of all US troops in less than three years.
Speaking to the Marines in North Carolina, Obama finally clarified that the proposed “residual force” of 50,000 or more will be a “transitional” one, departing one year after combat operations end on August 31, 2010. That position is consistent with the terms negotiated by the Iraqi government in the final days of the Bush Administration, in what the Iraqi side notably called the “withdrawal agreement.”
Even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were left confused by the initial announcement, questioning whether leaving 50,000 residual troops was really a withdrawal. Obama cleared that up with Friday’s speech.
In perspective, the Iraq war was wrong and illegitimate every day it was fought, and should have ended sooner. Some wanted “out now”, some wanted twelve months, some eighteen. The generals in Iraq may still want to stay indefinitely.
But a phased withdrawal is tolerable – and there’s not much a movement can do about it - if combat casualties steadily decline and all troops are heading for the exit. By agreeing to the Iraqi pact with Bush, Obama found a basis for rapidly removing the transitional troops as well. Before Friday, he remained deliberately unclear on the subject, leaving the spectre of a long counterinsurgency war like those in Central America.
This is a clear victory for those in the peace movement who supported Obama as the first anti-war candidate with a chance to become president.
The media will not acknowledge the role of the peace movement, nor will some on the Left. It will have to be explained as part of the legacy of our times. It will have to be defended against the hawks, because things can go wrong in Iraq in a hurry.
And it’s a lesson that should fortify many as they take on the long wars ahead.
