Why Daniel Ellsberg's claim about President Obama and Iraq is preposterous (updated)

[ProSense]

Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.

link

The pledge to withdraw troops was made before the SOTU. In fact, if he's saying this is a lie and Obama knows it, then everyone who campaigned on full withdrawal from Iraq has been lying, even Dennis Kucinich.

Ellsberg is basically saying that there is no way that the U.S. will leave Iraq, that he expects the U.S. to have 30,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. That's is simply an opinion not based in fact given the current situation.


Juan Cole

<...>

Third, the US left wing does not believe that Obama is committed to leaving Iraq. What, they say, of the huge permanent bases, of the need to safeguard US petroleum companies’ operations, etc.? So the left blogosphere magnifies the footdragging reports leaked by elements in the Pentagon.

But there are no such things as permanent bases. You build a base when you need a base, when you are in control or have a willing host. The US is a superpower, but generally speaking bases are bilateral agreements with the host country. When the Philippines asked the US navy to leave in 1989, it did so. The Iraqi parliament has asked the US to withdraw by the end of 2011 and Bush signed that treaty.

<...>

Unless Ellsberg knows that the Iraqis will ask the U.S. to stay and knows that the U.S. wants to stay, something that he cannot prove is a lie until the end of 2011, his accusation is ridiculous.

Updated to add this from Kevin Drum:

UPDATE: Sorry, I misread this. Ellsberg is talking about the end of 2011, at which time Obama has indeed promised to withdraw fully from Iraq. Calling this a lie is still pretty far over the top, though, unless we get to the end of 2011 and it turns out that Obama has refused to keep his word. So far, however, withdrawal has happened on exactly the schedule he outlined last year. And nothing in this year's State of the Union speech said anything about 2011.

link

[arcadian]

1. I'll take Daniel Ellsberg over your little opinions anyday.

[ProSense]

3. I will live. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

5. +1 I am with Daniel Ellsberg

[impik]

12. Of course. So what if he's saying that the president is lying about something that

didn't even happen yet? Do you realize how lunatic you sound?

[arcadian]

13. Sorry, who are you again?

Don't recognize your username.

[Autumn]

2. I trust Daniel Ellsberg, others, not so much.

Your accusation that he is ridiculous is ridiculous.

[damonm]

7. Reread OP.

Nowhere was it said that Daniel Ellsberg was ridiculous.
The accusation he has made is the subject, and evidence is given to support the claim that that accusation is "preposterous".
Where is your evidence?

[Autumn]

8. I did read the OP, that was what she said before

she edited it.

[Catherina]

4. Preposterous Propaganda n/t

[donco6]

6. Ellsberg: 1,500,000; Prosense: 0 n/t

[Cha]

9. I trust President Obama over

the barrage of cheap internet shots who never miss a chance to insult.

So easy to call someone a liar..I say Daniel Ellsberg is a liar for calling the President a liar. Not only is he an arrogant liar..Daniel Ellsberg is full of shit.

[dionysus]

10. i'm pretty used to this act being hauled out daily, how about you?

[damonm]

11. I find the claim suspect, but we'll know in about 18 months. n/t

[freddie mertz]

14. On this one, I have to go with Ellsberg.

He has earned my trust a thousand times over.