So puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki made noises
yesterday insisting that all foreign forces would be out of Iraq by 2011. Tina Susman and Ned Parker's "
Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki demands firm withdrawal date" (
Los Angeles Times) notes:
It
was the first time Maliki explicitly demanded a fixed deadline for the
departure of all U.S. troops from Iraq. His words appeared to rule out
the presence of any U.S. military advisors, special forces and air
support after the withdrawal date.The
current draft of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, details of which
had previously been reported, outlines a conditional timeline of 2011
for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq. However, it leaves the door
open for the U.S. military to stay on in a noncombat role.The
hardened position came after last week's visit by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice to Iraq, where she met with Maliki in hopes of
clearing obstacles to an agreement. But officials familiar with the
talks say that the prime minister remains undecided about whether he
even wants a deal.Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes
it is "a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists
that the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the
ground." Fadel also establishes what was said:
Maliki
said that the United States and Iraq had agreed that all foreign troops
would be off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. "There is an agreement
actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date,
which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil,"
Maliki said.The
New York Times doesn't do that. Possibly in an acknowledgement that Nouri is but a puppet, Campbell Robertson and Riyadh Mohammed's "
Maliki Pushes for Troop Withdrawal Date" makes an effort to downplay what al-Maliki said by allowing unnamed others to insist 'What he really meant was . . .':
Though
Mr. Maliki seemed to be referring to all foreign troops in his
statements, Iraqi negotiators have said recently that an agreed-upon
2011 date is for combat forces only, and that "training and support"
forces could remain after that if invited by the Iraqi government. On
Monday, a senior Iraqi official said he understood that even a
departure date for combat troops would be "conditions driven."Yesterday's snapshot
featured some of Tony Fratto's remarks as White House spokesperson for
the traveling White House (Crawford, TX). Here's Fratto in full:
Sure.
I know there are always reports out there in the press and I'm not sure
I saw exactly what Prime Minister Maliki said. But clearly from our
perspective, we've been working with the Iraqi government for a long
time on this agreement. It's a critical agreement between two sovereign
countries in this region, and we want to see this bilateral agreement
put in place, to take effect once the December 30th U.N. agreement runs
out. We're discussing goals. As you know, you've heard us speak about
different kinds of timelines or aspirational goals that may be
acceptable. I don't have anything to announce on that. An agreement has
not been signed, and so from our perspective, there is no agreement
until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue
in Baghdad. We'd like to let them continue and to continue to show
progress. What we're focused on is getting a good agreement, not
getting an agreement by a particular date. So we'll continue those
discussions. Stepping back, I think what we're really pleased about is
the fact that we're having these discussions with a sovereign,
democratically elected country that is -- that wants to have a
relationship with the United States going forward, and the fact that
the only reason we can have these discussions today is because of the
success of the surge. And as we continue to see security gains on the
ground in Iraq, and we can have the return on success that the
President talked about because of those security gains, that's a good
thing for us, that's a good thing for Iraq. And so we have these mutual
goals. But any decisions on troops will be based on the conditions on
the ground in Iraq. That has always been our position; it continues to
be our position. Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate, is providing
Ralph's Daily Audio Monday through Friday and this is "Bailouts on Your Back:"
This
is Ralph Nader. The giant corporate destruction of capitalism is
proceeding at an accelerated pace. It looks like captialsim -- that is
the bearing of risk by the business -- is only for small business, not
giant corporations that are deamed too big to fail no matter how their
executives, overpaid as they are, undermine, weaken and damage the
company their workers and share holders.
Three
examples. The US government now has enacted legislation which provides
for up to $25 billion in loan guarantees for the domestic auto
companies. These are the same companies that for years opposed fuel
efficiency standards while they sold customers their gas guzzling SUVs.
Well when the price of gasoline went up, SUV sales went down and what's
General Motors doing? Ford? Chrysler? They're going to Washington for,
essentially, a tax payer bail-out. And they want more than $25 billion
dollars in loan guarantees .
Next up is
the nuclear industry. They can't get Wall St. financing for their new
nuclear plants without a US government loan guarantee. They wanted $50
billion in recent legislation. But the Congress only gave them $19
billion for starters in loan guarantees. The Wall Streeters think that
nuclear power is so risky and unpredicatable that they won't give them
any loans without Uncle Sam guaranteeing them.
And
then there's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For years opposing adequate
regulation and adequate capital-ratios and they took on very risky
financial instruments and now they're diving and they're in consulation
with? US Treasury for some variety of bail-out or guarantee.
And
so it goes. The big guys are too big to fail and so they have no
incentive to bear the risk or even let their owners -- the share
holders -- control runaway CEO pay that's tied to inflating profits and
taking on excessive risk so their stock options are worth more for
their private riches.
Capitalism is used
as a propaganda tool by giant corporations -- as a legitimization of
what they're doing. That is: going into the market place, bearing the
risk, succeeding where they succeed and accepting the verdict of the
market place which, of course, is always beyond their control. This is
The Big Lie.
Wall St. goes to Washington
for bail-outs, hand-outs, give-aways and subsidies -- and that ought to
be an issue in the presidential campaign.
You
won't hear John McCain and Barack Obama talking about this at all.
They're in the same boat of government subsidized corporate capitalism.
This is Ralph Nader.
Meanwhile, inside the Pepsi Center, the dog and pony show took place last night.
And
yes, she bombed at the DNC. It's doubtful in all the gas bagging you'll
see and hear on it, anyone will point out that a Harvard graduate
should damn well know subject-verb agreement. And weren't her gestures
comical? More on Sunday but, yes, I have read the e-mails. "Ass"-"tute"
a groupie posing as a 'journalist' calls her today and he's just as
grammatically challenged as she is. The bar's not being moved, it's
where it always was and that speech wouldn't have cut it for the spouse
of a city council member let along as a keynote speech. Modulation was
a foreign concept as words went LOUD for no reason and what passed for
normal at others. In other words, she lacked poise. Or, as her former
roll dog on TV this morning (not introduced as such) might have worded
it, she lacked "pose"--"ee."
The e-mail address for this site is
common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the los angeles times
tina susmanned parker
mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
the new york times
campbell robertson
riyadh mohammed
