Iraq snapshot

Monday, November 17, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, 17 Iraqis are reported dead and forty-six wounded, the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement continues to ease on down the road, Peaches O'Day didn't have anything on the US, and more.   Starting with news of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino declared, "As we've been saying since July, when we said that we would work with the Iraqis to establish a date that we would aspire to -- we just keep getting success after success on the security front in Iraq.  And when you work with a partner on a negotiation, you have to concede some points.  One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates.  We're only able to do this because of the progress that's been made by the great work of our forces, and by the Iraqi security forces as well.  They, every day, gain in number, confidence and competence.  And we are going to continue to work with the Iraqis, because while we did have a good step with the council of ministers approving the agreement, and then our ambassador and their foreign ministers signing it today, there are still seveal steps left to go."  Indeed and anyone paying attention should have noticed something very important in Perino's wording.   Saturday  Nidaa Bakhsh (Bloomberg News) cited press chatter that Sunday's cabinet vote would support the treaty.  Katherine Zoepf and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) reported that a preliminary meeting was held Monday to test the waters in Parliament but the Islamic Council of Iraq skipped the meeting which "ended without any clear public resolution."  Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet did approve the treaty on Sunday.  Adam Ashton and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explained nine members of the cabinet were not present and that all but one of the 28 members present voted in favor of it leading Gordon Johndroe, White House flack, to crow, "While the process is not yet complete, we remain hopeful and confident we'll soon have an agreement that serves both the people of Iraq and the United States well and sends a signal to the region and the world that both our governments are committed to a stable, secure and democratic Iraq."  And what ensued was a contest among the press to determine who could make a bigger fool out of themselves.    Top contenders included Anne Penketh (Independent of London), Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times).  Penketh declared, "The Iraqi cabinet has finally approved a hard-fought security pact with the US under which all American troops are to withdraw from Iraq in three years, putting an end to the US-led occupation of Iraq that has defined America's relations with the rest of the world since the 2003 invasion." Susman insisted, "Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans."  Robertson and Farrell maintained, "Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces fromt he country by the end of 2011."  Only the Washington Post was functioning today.  Mary Beth Sheridan reported -- actually reported, did what reporters are supposed to do and who knew it was that difficult but look at the other outlets -- that "the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years."  We'll come back to Sheridan's article but just absorb that because she appears to be not just the only one reporting but the only one with a grasp of facts.  The UN mandate (covering the occupation) expires December 31st.  A new agreement is needed or the mandate needs to be renewed by the UN Security Council for US troops to remain in Iraq (if it's a treaty with the US; renewing the UN mandate would actually cover all foreign troops).  Somehow everyone in the press thinks the treaty is about withdrawal.  It was never about withdrawal, it was about creating a legal context and framework to allow US troops to remain in Iraq.  But apparently it was bring your inner-child to work day today and they were allowed to run free.  Sheridan covers the basics:   The accord still needs approval from Iraq's parliament, but the cabinet vote indicated that most major Iraqi parties supported it. The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. "The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord. American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.   Yes, the spokespeople did run with spin.  Why so many in the press elected to adopt it is a mystery.  Some Iraqis do believe the spin (others bought off and intimdated by the State Dept don't give a damn) but then they thought the original version gave them 'rights' over US service members who committed crimes, now didn't they? The US really isn't that good at wars but the government has always excelled in treaties that lulled the other party into believing they were getting a good deal. It never works out that way, now does it? Not for the Native Americans, not for Panama, go down the list. But an updated treaty (only recently translated out of English) is wonderful, it's marvelous, it's . . . George W. Bush is not about to end the Iraq War. Get real. It takes a lot of stupid to set aside US history and assume this treaty with an occupied nation is (for the first time ever) a fair and beneficial (to the Iraqis) treaty. But didn't the press do that?  It's hard to figure out whether the Iraqis or the press are the NYC immigrants to the White House's Peaches O'Day, determined to sell and re-sell the Brooklyn Bridge over and over.  In Every Day's a Holiday, Mae West tosses out lines that the US government could never hope to pull off (like, "I may crack a law, but I ain't never broke one") and a few that would be completely believable coming from the current administration ("Larceny nothin', you'll send 'em a check in the morning.").  Though it's not surprising to see the puppet government in Iraq play the role of Fritz Krausmeyer, it's shocking to also see the press so eager to play the sap.   The propsed treaty would give US forces legal protection to remain in Iraq.  It is not about withdrawal.  And for those still not grasping that fact, let's return to what Dana Perino told the press today and zoom in on this: "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates."  Aspirational dates?  Not concrete ones.  A withdrawal treaty would cover withdrawal.  This treaty focuses on keeping US troops in Iraq through 2011 at which point the treaty runs out.  Does that mean anything?  Yes, it means that a new treaty would then be ironed out.  It might or might not call for withdrawal.  It might or might not do something else.  But the treaty before the Iraqis right now has "aspirational dates" and is about the US remaining in Iraq through the end of 2011.    For those still confused, Phil Sands (The National) walks you through:   The troop withdrawal dates are targets, not set in stone. They are designed to appease the widely held sentiment among Iraqis that US forces must not be allowed to stay indefinitely; that they are a tolerated, necessary nuisance rather than welcomed guests.    In reality, as of today there seems scant prospect that every US soldier will have left Iraq within the next three years, and all 400 or so US bases closed. But the suggestion this is going to happen makes the Sofa more palatable to a sceptical Iraqi public. It is an unremarkable and understandable political survival tactic to make a promise that will get broken, if that is what it takes to gets out of a tight spot and buy some time.   Add to it Ken Fireman (Bloomberg News) reporting that the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, is making remarks at odd with today's spin such as (on withdrawal), "To remove the entire force would be two to three years, as opposed to something we could do in a very short period of time."  (Actually, all US troops could be withdrawn in the first 100 days of the new administration.)  Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) observes, "Mullen emphasized that he still believes any U.S. troop reductions should be based on the levels of violence in Iraq - a position that runs counter to the official Iraqi stance."  Bryan Bender (Boston Globe) explains the 'binding' contract really isn't, "Once approved by the Iraqi Parliament, which began debate on the measure today, it cannot be changed by either side for at least a year, according to Article 31 of the draft."  At least a year?  So in December 2009, this Troops-Home-In-2011! spin might spin right out the window?  Yes.    The treaty will be the topic of a hearing this week in the US.  US House Rep Bill Delahunt's office issued a press release Thursday:   U.S. Rep. Bill Delahunt, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight will hold his eighth hearing on the proposed U.S.-Iraq security agreement on Wednesday, November 19th at 10am.    Next week's hearing will examin the possibilty that any bilateral agreement, reached between the Bush Administration and teh government of Iraq may effectivly tie the hands of the next Administration as a result of a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it for one year.    At the end of October, Delahunt joined with Congresswman Rosa DeLauro in writing to President Bush asking for a temporary extension of the UN mandate for Iraq which expires on December 31, and is the sold instrument providing U.S. troops with the legal authorization to engage in combat opeartions in Iraq.       US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro penned also penned July 8th's  "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post).   Reaction to the news of the council signing off on the treaty was mixed.  AP quotes Mohsen Bilal, Syrian Information Minister, stating the treaty is an "award to the occupiers."  However, Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall Street Journal) notes that Iran's Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi hails the council's move as a "victory" and Chon also notes, "When asked about the change in tone from Iran, a senior U.S. official said today there was absolutely no softening in Iran's position. He added that Iran's opposition was not just about getting the U.S. out of Iraq, but also ultimately winning the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Another U.S. official characterized the recent comments from Iran as an adjustment in strategy to try to take credit for the approval of the security pact from the Iraqi cabinet."  Reactions within Iraq are many but we'll focus on this unnamed Iraq quoted by Sami Moubayed (Asia Times), "I never trusted Nuri al-Maliki.  I would count my fingers after shaking his hands.  Although we have no proof at this stage, it is clear that plenty of money was handsomely distributed last week in Baghdad, to make sure that the entire cabinet -- with no exceptions -- ratified the agreement draft with the United States.  One day this will come out in the classified archives of the US, perhaps 30 years form now. . . .  We now realize why no serious effort was made at getting the resigned ministers from the Sunni bloc, the Iraqi Accordance Front or the Shi'ite bloc of Muqtada al-Sadr to rejoin the Maliki cabinet.  Malaki knew that if they were in office, they surely would have drowned the agreemtn within the cabinet of ministers."  Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman tells AP that the treay "may not be enough to lure back Christians who have fled Baghdad."   AFP reports al-Sadr's bloc in Parliament insisted that the "draft law on treaties and conventions" be reviewed instead of the treaty between the White House and al-Maliki and the speaker compromised by allowing them both to be read.  Xinhau reports that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed the treaty today.   In DC, spokesperson Sean McCormack handled today's press briefing and repeatedly side-stepped the issue of dates even when asked if they could be discussed.  McCormack did note that after Parliament, "then I think it has to be ratified by the Presidency Council as a final step."    While the Parliament debates the treaty, there are other issues.  IRIN notes the issue of the prisoners currently held by the US:   Local NGOs are concerned about the rights of detainees in US military custody due to be transferred to the Iraqi authorities in 2009 in line with a draft US-Iraqi security pact.  "There are fears among human rights activists, NGOs and parliamentarians about what the situation of these detainees will look like when they are transferred to the Iraqi authorities," Iraqi activist Basil al-Azawi said.    "As parliament represents the Iraqi people, it should act in line with the interests of Iraqis... Absolute justice must be achieved and Iraqi and international laws must be implemented when dealing with those detainees in Iraqi prisons," he told IRIN.   Meanwhile Gareth Porter (IPS) reports that despite non-stop claims and spin that Iran was steady-supplying weapons in Iraq the reality is that "only 17 percent of the weapons found in caches" could be traced to Iran and "The extremely small proportion of Iranian arms in Shi'a milita weapons caches further suggests that Shi'a militia fighters in Iraq have been getting weapons from local and international arms markets rather than from an official Iranian-sponsored smuggling network."       Tuesday's snapshot included: "Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports Syria refused to allow a World Food Program ship to unload rice 'at the country's main port' due to 'the percentage of cracked rice in the cargo' (according to a Syiran official).  The rice was intended for some of the estimated 194,000 refugees from Iraq currently living in Syria."  IRIN reports that the World Food Programme states today, "We are very hopeful for a positive outcome from the negotiations."   Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a magnetic Baghdad bombing left five wounded, another resulted in two people being wounded, another resulted in three wounded, an Amarah car bombing that wounded eighteen people and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people wounded.  Xinhau notes an al-Mussyyab mortar attack that landed on a home and claimed the life of 1 person.  Reuters notes a Sulaimaniya bombing that left three people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded, a Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left three people wounded and another Mussayab roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one more individual injured.   Shootings?   Xinhau notes 1 "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Iskandariyah.  Reuters notes 2 'suspects' shot dead in Mosul, and 5 'suspects' shot dead in Baghdad.   Corpses?     Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.  Reuters notes 1 corpse (female) discovered in Kirkuk and 1 in Iskandariy that was a male "Awakening" member.     Saturday  Reuters reported that the US military states the helicopter hit "overhead cables" and that caused what they are terming a "hard landing."  Later in the day the US military announced, "MOSUL -- Two Coalition forces Soldiers were killed after an aircraft accident in East Mosul in Ninewah province Nov. 15. The incident appears to be combat-unrelated and there was no enemy contact in the area."  The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to  4201 -- the 4200 mark has been passed.     Opening non-Iraq related.  Third's "Editorial: It's about equality" covers Saturday's demonstrations around the country on behalf of equality.  For California, the issue was Proposition 8 which passed and outlawed and overturned same-sex marriage. A boycott list (called a "blacklist" at some sites such as antigayblacklist) has led Chris Lee to whine to UPI, "This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countriest, should not be found in the United States."  The information on those lists is public information and if you don't want to be included in it, you don't donate.  If you donated it should have been to something you believed in.  Apparently, you were more comfortable stroking your homophobia in the dark and a little sunlight frightens the hell out of you.  Too bad.  I know I wouldn't want any children to see 'therapist' Sarah Pack in San Jose, not knowing that she donated $2000 to defeat equality and I would assume a gay couple -- two men or two women -- especially wouldn't want to use her as a family therapist or for their child.  Same with 'psychotherapist' Susan B. Jones of Yuba City. People using Citrus Heights' Todd Johnson's denistry work have every right to reconsider doing so. And anyone considering going to Utah should know that Bruce Andrus of Huntington Hotels in Park City, Utah gave $20,000 to destroy equality.  And if you're considering getting married in Utah and you do not support discrimination, you should avoid Lisa Myler of American Fork, UT (Myler Weddings) who gave $10,000 to destroy equality.  And who wants to go to Disneyland?  With "scheduler" Paula Barnes tossing in $3,000 why not just go to Magic Mountain instead?   I'm sorry that some people are so stupid that they fail to grasp campaign donations are public record.  But that's reality.  Reality also includes that when you fund a campaign of hate, people have every right to avoid funding you by engaging you for tasks.  A right to avoid funding you and, many would argue, a duty to.   iraq bloomberg news the new york times katherine zoepf leila fadel mcclatchy newspapers hussein kadhim anne penketh the washington post mary beth sheridan ann scott tyson the new york times campbell robertson stephen farrell the los angeles times tina susman gina chon the wall street journal gareth porter bill delahunt rosa delauro

At least 14 dead in Iraq today

The U.S. military has barred Iraqi interpreters working with American troops in Baghdad from wearing ski masks to disguise themselves, prompting some to resign and others to bare their faces even though they fear it could get them killed.
Many interpreters employed by the U.S. government and Western companies in Iraq do everything they can to avoid being recognized on the job because extremists have tortured and killed Iraqis accused of collaborating with the enemy.

The above is from Ernesto Londono's "Mask Ban Upsets Iraqis Hired as U.S. Interpreters" (Washington Post). Being suspected of collaborating with the US is bad enough. Being known for it? Equally true is that there has been more concern in the UK for helping the collaborators than there has been in the US. The Times of London, for example, has regularly led the cry for collaborators to be granted asylum. It's not been that big of an issue in the US.

Violence saw an increase in Iraq last week -- not that it was ever absent. NPR's Corey Flintoff provided an overview of it in "Violence Rises In Iraq, But How Bad Is It?" (Weekend Edition, text and audio) and we'll note this section regarding the death tolls:

There's wide speculation as to why the casualty figures vary so greatly.
Some say numbers are exaggerated in an effort to discredit the government's claims that it's providing better security at a time when Iraq and the U.S. are trying to conclude a security agreement specifying how long U.S. troops can remain in Iraq.
Others say the government is low-balling the numbers to convince Iraqis that it has security under control in order to garner votes as Iraq prepares for provincial elections at the end of January.
Uncertain casualty figures make it hard for either side to make its case.

Violence continues today and Xinhau notes 1 "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Iskandariyah, an al-Mssyyab mortar attack that landed on a home and claimed the life of 1 person, an Amara car bombing ("near a U.S. and Iraqi military base) left eighteen people wounded. To that Reuters adds a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people injured, 2 'suspects' were shot dead in a Mosul house, a Baghdad bombing left five people injured, a Mussayab roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left three people injured,
a second Mussayab roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left one more person wounded, 5 'suspects' were shot dead in Baghdad and 1 corpse was discovered in Iskandariya.


Noah notes two highlights. First up Mickey Z's "Nothing To Lose But Your Chains, Some Things Are Bigger Than Any Of Us" (Information Clearing House):

Let's face it: Things sucked under George W. Bush. Things will suck under Barack Obama. Things have sucked under every president. Nothing will change until we change our minds. We can’t be as indifferent as those before us. They didn't think enough about future generations so now we have to work twice as hard. It sucks, I know, but this not an issue of fairness. It’s about survival.
Some things in life are bigger than any of us. The anti-slavery movement recognized this. Today, the entire planet is enslaved…to profit-seeking corporations and the corrupt politicians they own (yes, including the Pope of Hope). Are this generation's abolitionists ready to step up and create change? Not ask for change, create change.
Why not embrace your outrage and frustration and let it challenge you, inspire you, and motivate you? Instead of channeling your ambitions toward climbing a mountain, running a marathon, or striving to make your first million before you’re 30, what greater goal could any of us ever aim for than to leave the planet much better off than how we found it?
You have nothing to lose but your chains...

And Noah also notes Chris Hedges' "America the Illiterate" (Information Clearing House):

We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print-based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities.
There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level. Nearly a third of the nation’s population is illiterate or barely literate. And their numbers are growing by an estimated 2 million a year. But even those who are supposedly literate retreat in huge numbers into this image-based existence. A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book.
The illiterate rarely vote, and when they do vote they do so without the ability to make decisions based on textual information. American political campaigns, which have learned to speak in the comforting epistemology of images, eschew real ideas and policy for cheap slogans and reassuring personal narratives. Political propaganda now masquerades as ideology. Political campaigns have become an experience. They do not require cognitive or self-critical skills. They are designed to ignite pseudo-religious feelings of euphoria, empowerment and collective salvation. Campaigns that succeed are carefully constructed psychological instruments that manipulate fickle public moods, emotions and impulses, many of which are subliminal. They create a public ecstasy that annuls individuality and fosters a state of mindlessness. They thrust us into an eternal present. They cater to a nation that now lives in a state of permanent amnesia. It is style and story, not content or history or reality, which inform our politics and our lives. We prefer happy illusions. And it works because so much of the American electorate, including those who should know better, blindly cast ballots for slogans, smiles, the cheerful family tableaux, narratives and the perceived sincerity and the attractiveness of candidates. We confuse how we feel with knowledge.
The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless. They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.

Bonnie notes Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" went up last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
the washington post
mary beth sheridan
ernesto londono
npr
weekend edition
corey flintoff
mickey z
chris hedges

Reporting and 'reporting' on the treaty

Three years is not a lifetime away. It will be here before you know it. So why some reporters are begging to be laughed at in three years is beyond me. Last night we noted Anne Penketh's "All US troops out of Iraq 'in three years'" (Independent of London) fact-free diagnosis of something she's not qualified to diagnose. (Do they no longer teach that at journalism school?) Out of apparent solidarity, a number of her peers want to stand in stupidity today.

We'll get to them. Instead, let's turn our attention to the only outlet that appears to be functioning today, the Washington Post. This is the opening of Mary Beth Sheridan's "Iraqi Cabinet Backs U.S. Security Deal: Parliament, Top Council Must Approve:"


After months of tense negotiations and public protests, the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years.
The accord still needs approval from Iraq's parliament, but the cabinet vote indicated that most major Iraqi parties supported it. The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
"The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.
American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

That's what a journalist does. Three years from now a number of outlets and journalists will be feeling mighty foolish because they didn't know or grasp their job. For example, they are not of the US State Dept and they are not treaty negotiators or drafters. In other words, it is beyond their level of expertise and they are supposed to seek out someone knowledgeable to interpret for them or else stick with the US says . . . and the Iraqis say . . . They did not do that.

Let's turn to the embarrassment in the New York Times. The paper that sold the illegal war on lies now wants to insist (with nothing to back it up) that the treaty ends the illegal war. Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell's "Pact, Approved In Iraq, Sets Time For U.S. Pullout:"

Iraq's cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011. The cabinet's decision brings a final date for the departure of American troops a significant step closer after more than five and a half years of war.

Oh, is that what it calls for? Suddenly Robertson and Farrell are equipped and trained to traverse a complicated legal document all by themselves? Really?

The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables.

Oh it does? An iron-clad date for withdrawal? Because if it's not iron-clad it's not a date for withdrawal as anyone familiar with contract law would be damn aware so certainly Robertson and Farrell are familiar with that, right? They are experts and trained in navigating a legal document between two nations?

No, they aren't. As the incoming president might put it, they're 'reporting' above their pay grade.

That this sort of 'reporting' (and it's not just the Times) passed an editor (or in the case of the Independent of London, was written by an editor) is a puzzle for someone else to solve. Certainly, it tells/flatters the establishment. Whether this is sucking up or a coordinated effort to misinform the public, we'll leave for someone else to decide; however, it is not journalism.

Here's Tina Susman from "Iraq Cabinet agrees to U.S. troop exit by end of 2011" (Los Angeles Times):

Iraq's Cabinet on Sunday overwhelmingly accepted a plan to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq by the end of 2011 and sent it on to parliament for approval, where it faces a fight from lawmakers who consider it a sellout to the Americans.

How can Susman back that up? It's her opening sentence in a report, not a column, and she can't back it up. She could have said "accepted a plan that some say would end the . . ." She didn't have that qualifier. She presented something as fact when she's not qualified to make that judgment even if she had been given a copy of the treaty to pour over. (The treaty's full text has not been published yet.)

Only one outlet informs you today. The rest tell a pleasing narrative that they can't back up and one that, in three years, they may be hoping everyone's forgotten.

The treaty (wrongly called a Status Of Forces Agreement) -- if passed -- will only extend the occupation of Iraq for three more years. The point Sheridan makes in her opening sentence. Susman offers the following:

After the Cabinet vote Sunday, government spokesman Ali Dabbagh sought to deflect Iraqi concerns that the pact left open the door for U.S. troops to extend their stay here. He called the withdrawal deadlines of June 2009 and Dec. 31, 2011, "final and decided."
When the talks began, the United States had pressed for wording that would have omitted deadlines for troop withdrawals in favor of a vague "time horizon" for withdrawal dependent on conditions in Iraq.
Even with the deadlines, Dabbagh said Iraq would have the right to cancel the agreement if it decided its forces were ready to assume full control of the country's security.

Oh, wow! Did he say that? Did a government spokesperson, an ally of al-Maliki, say that? Then it must be . . . suspect. The treaty is unpopular in Iraq and the spokesperson is going to spin it. Equally true, is that even if he wanted to offer an honest opinion, it's beyond the knowledge base of a spokesperson. Where do press flacks for the government usually head via the revolving door? Yes, and there's a reason for that.

Both transmit information. Neither originate it nor are qualified to make judgments well beyond the scope of their training.

AP quotes Mohsen Bilal, Syrian Information Minister, stating the treaty is an "award to the occupiers."

Text and audio reporting on the treaty can be found at Australia's ABC where AM offers "Iraq Cabinet approves draft US troop withdrawal agreement:"

PETER CAVE: Iraq's Cabinet has approved a draft security agreement with the United States that requires all US troops to leave the country by the end of 2011.
The US Government says it's all possible because of improving security conditions.
Within hours of the Cabinet decision, a car bomb exploded at a police checkpoint.
Brendan Trembath reports.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: The remote-controlled bomb exploded at a police check point in Diyala Province, north of Baghdad. At least 15 people were killed. It was the latest in a series of almost daily attacks in Iraq targeting security forces.
Overall though, the United States says the security situation in Iraq is improving and combat forces continue to return home. The US has welcomed the approval by Iraq's Cabinet of a military agreement with the United States.
The pact requires all US troops to pull out of cities by the middle of next year, and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011.
Iraq's Parliament is scheduled to vote on the pact in a week.
Iraqi Government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh.

ALI AL-DABBAGH: I am optimistic that this agreement going to pass through the Council of Representatives as it is an issue, an important issue.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: The agreement has to be approved by the Parliament by the end of the year.
A United Nations mandate covering the presence of US and other troops will expire then.
The Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh says this is the best agreement possible because it will manage the end of the military presence and guarantee the complete withdrawal of the troops.
He says the withdrawal dates of 2009 and 2011 are "fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground." He says the agreement reached is not ideal for either the Iraqis or the Americans but he still seems pleased.

While Cave gets it wrong, note that Trembath repeatedly frames it with "say". And it a so-sad-for-US-outlets moment, China Xinhau reports better on the treaty:

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and the US envoy to Iraq Ryan Crocker signed Monday the long-awaited security pact which would allow US forces to remain in the country for three more years, state-run TV reported.
"This is an historic day for the Iraqi and US relations," Zebari said during the signing ceremony.
He said the agreement has to be approved by parliament before it goes into force, adding that "there is a positive atmosphere among the political leaders."
The Iraqi cabinet Sunday approved the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and another agreement of bilateral cooperation in various fields between the two countries.

Three more years of US forces approved. That's all that the treaty's offering. But keep spinning that it says in three years US forces come out and it says that in binding language. Keep spinning.

Loretta notes Steve Conn's "Bob Bird (Who?) and the Crazy Fringe Party, Palin Trashers Just Love(d) to Hate, End Ted Stevens' Reign in Alaska" (Dissident Voice):

Hey, Partisan Democrats like Hendrick Hertzberg of the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town." Hey, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Meet Bob Bird, Alaska Senatorial Candidate for the Alaska Independence Party. He just did rabid Democrats and President-elect Obama a very big favor. He ran for Alaska's Senate seat as a member of the AIP, that "demonic fringe party of domestic terrorists," you warned your readers and listeners about, back when it was smear-Sarah-Palin-time in the big race. You used the old Red baiting tactic of guilt-by association on Palin and her husband, the tactic that is bad only when used against your favored candidate. Now guess what happened?
Social studies teacher Bob Bird of Nikiski High School did you, Chuck Schumar, Harry Reid and President-elect Obama a big favor. Bird ran on an anti-war, pro-life, anti-federal government platform in Alaska and took more than four percent of the votes in the Senate race, more than 12,144, some of which just might have been earned by Ted Stevens. Stevens had beaten then-Republican Bird by more than 50,000 votes in the1990 party primary. This time, as an AIP candidate, Bird was endorsed by anti-war Libertarian, Ron Paul. Now Bird is getting his sweet revenge on Ted Stevens. Democrat Mark Begich is beating Senator Stevens by only 1,022 votes with 25,000 votes left to count next week, mostly from Begich strongholds in Southeastern Alaska’s Pan Handle and Anchorage. So Sarah Palin won't get a chance to run in a special election after Senator-elect Stevens resigns or is expelled. With barely a mention in the press and with less money than a single charter flight would have cost to ship all those famous campaign clothes back to Anchorage from the Real America, this Kenai Peninsula unknown has taken the air out of Ted Stevens' balloon as a Federal jury conviction did not . If Ted Stevens had wanted Bird’s votes, he should have earned them. (That's what Ralph Nader would say).

Bonnie notes Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" went up yesterday. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
anne penketh
the washington post
mary beth sheridan
the new york times
campbell robertson
stephen farrell
the los angeles times
tina susman
brendan trembath
peter cave
am
steve conn

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present"

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present." Wearing a t-shirt that reads "My Mother The Car," Jerry Van Dyke points out, "You lost a half million viewers Thursday and a half million the week before." Tina Fey responds, "Oh no! If Jerry Van Dyke the ghost of network past is visiting me, this can't be good. I better go find an NBC network exec's leg to hump."


Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bitchy Tina Fey" was the first installment and his plans are for this to be a theme for at least one more comic.

the world today just nuts
comic
bitchy tina fey
tina fey
jerry van dyke
ghosts of network bombs past and present
the common ills

And the war drags on . . .

US military announces the death of a Marine

The treaty, John Howard gets explored

Iraq snapshot

congress in support of the multi-trillion dollar no-strings-attached

Wall Street bailout.

The first appointments of the new regime are truly disturbing. Illinois

congressman Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff is a

certifiable Democratic neocon who helped strongarm NAFTA, welfare reform

and the Telecom Act of 1996 though congress for Bill Clinton. He served on the board of Freddie Mac while it was busy inflating the housing bubble, and was

an early and unrepentant advocate of invading Iraq and bombing Iran. As head

of the DCCC, responsible for recruiting and funding 2006 Democratic c

ongressional candidates, Emanuel used corporate contributions to try to

knock more than a twenty antiwar Democrats out of primary races in favor of

pro-war Democrats. Confronted with choices between pro-war Democrats and

pro-war Republicans, voters rejected most of Emanuel's picks, costing

Democrats as many as ten Congressional seats.

Larry Summers, early front-runner to succeed Bush Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, was happy to be Enron's eyes and ears at Treasury, according to a handwritten note to his pal Ken Lay you can find at OpenLeft.com. Summers famously remarked that third world countries were "underpolluted". His

solution to this "problem" is encouraging them to sell their share of "rights" to poison the planet's oceans and air to wealthy western corporations through a system like the present futures and commodities exchanges. Both the outgoing Bush and the incoming Obama administrations are enthusiastic advocates of

this "market-based" approach. So much for a Change We Can Breathe In.

A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that "every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria."  

UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria

over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence."

The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled

Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on.

John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep's clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:  

Blair's Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known…³   

Over the past two weeks -- one decade and three wars later -- the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another "new dawn". A Guardian leader observed:   

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world…

Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America's hope and, in no small way, ours too.  

In the Guardian's news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as "historic, epochal, path breaking". But there was more:  

"Just being alive at a time when it's so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting."  

In 2003, the Guardian's foreign editor, Ed Pilkington, told us: 

"We are not in the business of editorialising our news reports."⁴ 

Someone forgot to tell Burkeman, indeed the entire Guardian news team. At times like these, the media's claims to balanced coverage seem to belong to a different universe. Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media. The propaganda is such that comments made by independent US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, appear simply shocking: 

What we're seeing is the highest level of resignation and apathy and powerlessness I've ever seen. We're not talking about hoopla. We're not talking about 'hope'. We're not talking about rhetoric. We're not talking about 'rock star Obama'. We're talking about the question that is asked everywhere I go: 'What is left for the American people to decide other than their own personal lives under more restrictive circumstances year after year?' And the answer is: almost nothing.⁵  

Nader says of Obama: "This is show business what you're seeing." The crucial point: "Obama doesn't like to take on power."⁵  

iraq
the washington post
ernesto londono
dana priest
mcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobel

leila fadel
media lens
john pilger

deborah haynes

dan balz
janet hook
wbai
cat radio cafe
janet coleman
david dozer
vivian gornick
60 minutes
cbs news
karen tumulty
washington week
now on pbs
pbs

the real news network

2 US service members announced dead

China's Xinhau notes, "Two American soldiers died in separate non-combat related incidents in Iraq, the U.S. military said on Friday." Both are noted here: The US military announces, "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 3:50 a.m. Nov. 13 in Baghdad." And the US miliary announces: "A Coalition force Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related cause at approximately 11:52 a.m Nov. 13 in western Iraq." But we'll note them again because the announcement were made late. The two deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4197.

On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Katherine Zoepf and Mudhafer al-Husaini cover sticky bombs in "Militants Turn to Small Bombs in Iraq Attacks"

According to figures from Iraq's Interior Ministry, sticky bombs killed 3 people and wounded 18 in Baghdad alone during the month of July. In October, 9 people were killed and 46 more were injured by sticky bombs. Casualty rates caused by sticky bombs are still relatively low. But recent raids on insurgent groups have uncovered caches of the bombs, even "sticky bomb factories," Colonel Stover said. And magnetic I.E.D.'s have recently been made an explicit part of the training that American soldiers in Baghdad receive.
"We make our soldiers aware of the latest threat, and the latest I.E.D. threat is these magnetic I.E.D.'s," he said. "We put them in their hands and say, 'Hey, soldier, this is what this thing looks like.' They're sometimes used against us -- our vehicles are metallic, too."
Iraqi and United States officials acknowledge that "sticky bombs" have been an effective means of spreading terror among Iraqi urban populations but note that, paradoxically, the bombs are also a sign that terrorists are finding it harder to move freely.
"The safety barriers, the walls themselves, have largely taken away these catastrophic attacks that you saw in the past," Colonel Stover said. "The smaller bombs are not capable of causing that catastrophic attack. But they’re causing a lot of panic."

Stover might want to reconsider his assasine remarks because they are offensive. While the US may take the 'long range' view that sticky bombs do less damage, they still do damage and people still die. The people are not being 'silly' or 'paranoid' to be bothered (or in a "panic") over them. For more on sticky bombs, you can drop back to October for Ernesto Londono's "Use of 'Sticky IEDs' Rising in Iraq" (Washington Post) which noted:


Iraqi insurgents are increasingly using magnetically attached bombs known as "sticky IEDs" to assassinate mid- and low-level Iraqi officials, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.
Rigged with magnets so they will adhere to the undersides of automobiles and detonated by remote control or with timers, the bombs have been used in Iraq sporadically since 2004. This year, U.S. military officials said, they have investigated roughly 200 cases involving magnetic bombs, and Iraqi officials said they have noted an increase in assassination attempts in which attackers use guns equipped with silencers.

Staying with bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers offers "The Explosive Detecting Device of the Iraqi Forces" (Inside Iraq) addressing the ineffective devices used to 'detect' bombs:

The first time I found out this fact was few days ago. I was with my friend in his car coming to work. When our car passed through the checkpoint, the Iraqi soldier walked beside the car carrying the detecting device. The antenna of the device moved towards our car which means that we have explosives. The soldier ordered us to park aside. My friend did exactly what the soldier wanted. Another soldier came towards us and told my friend to open the trunk and he searched it. he didn't find anything. while searching our car, a soldier came riding his motorbike and carrying his AK 47 gun. he passed through the checkpoint. I was looking at him when I saw that the device didn't detect anything although the gun was loaded. I thought it is only the device was broken.
The second incident was in Abo Nowas street in downtown Baghdad. Another kind of the detecting devices is used in one of the check point. Again, the devices detected something in our car. We stopped and the policeman checked it but he found nothing. he came towards us and asked "anyone of wear perfume?" I said quickly "yes I do" then the man said "ok you can go." I was like OMG. What kind of detecting devices our forces have".

The Congressional races still ongoing include the December 6th vote for a House seat the Green Party's Malik Rahim is running for.





Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) is supporting Malik's run and covering it and you can click here for the YouTube video of him speaking at the Green Party convention last July.

Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS explores green collar jobs:


Can something as common as building materials represent an opportunity to create jobs, help the needy, and save the planet? This week, NOW looks at two "green" projects keeping furniture, paint, cabinets, and other building supplies out of landfills and getting them into the hands of those who need them most. Will they be devastated by the economic meltdown, or do they signal a possible way out?
Based in the Bronx, New York, Greenworker Co-operatives aims to set up worker-owned green businesses. The first of these is Rebuilders Source, a store that sells recycled and donated building materials at affordable prices--items that would otherwise have ended up in a landfill.
"My vision now is a completely green South Bronx," says Bronx-born entrepreneur Omar Freilla, the founder of Greenworker Co-operatives, "with businesses throughout the area that are owned and run by people living in the area together."
On the other side of the country, in Southern California, Materials Matter matches donations of furniture and high quality building materials with individuals, organizations, and homeless shelters that use the materials to literally rebuild lives. But the faltering economy has had an impact.
"We have to decide whether the value of that donation will be worth the cost of transportation," says Materials Matter co-founder Alison Riback on her blog. "[The economic downturn] put a huge dent in our 'always say yes to a donation' philosophy."
This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation.


NOW on PBS begins airing tonight in most PBS markets, check local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on some PBS stations tonight (and later throughout the weekend on others). Gwen's joined by Greg Ip (The Economist), Dan Balz (Washington Post), Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine) and topics will include the proposed auto bailout, Barack, Bully Boy transitioning to civilian war time (okay, Karen won't really discuss that, but she should) and Congressional races. On Barack, CBS' 60 Minutes gets the first extended television interview with him since the election (Steve Kroft interviews him) and that airs this Sunday.

That's public broadcasting TV, public broadcasting radio includes WBAI and we'll note these programs airing Sunday and Monday on WBAI:

Sunday, November 16, 11am-noon

THE NEXT HOUR

Former WBAI News Director and Dan Rather writer, Paul Fischer's latest newsical in the series "What's the Freqency, Kenneth?" This time, Paul goes one joke over the line...to confess his lifelong addiction to drug songs.

Monday, November 17, 2-3pm

Cat Radio Cafe

Feminist author Vivian Gornick on her latest book of literary criticism, "The Men In My Life," downtown icon Edgar Oliver on "East 10th Street Self-Portrait," a play by and about him; and playwright Stephen Belber on his newest work, "Geometry of Fire,"about an investment-banker-turned Marine sniper returned from Iraq and a Saudi-American who just wants to get laid. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."


Broadcasting at WBAI/NY 99.5 FM
Streaming live at WBAI
Archived at Cat Radio Cafe

Zach asks that we note this from A.N.S.W.E.R.:

Mass Actions on the 6th Anniversary of the Iraq War -- March 21, 2009
Bring All the Troops Home Now -- End All Colonial Occupations!
Fund People's Needs, Not Militarism & Bank Bailouts!

Marking the sixth anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq, thousands will take to the streets of Washington D.C. and other cities across the U.S. and around the world in March 2009 to say, “Bring the Troops Home NOW!” We will also demand “End Colonial Occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Everywhere,” and “Fund Peoples’ Needs Not Militarism and Bank Bailouts.” We also insist on an end to the war threats and economic sanctions against Iran.

The ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is organizing for unified mass marches and rallies in Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami and other cities on Saturday, March 21, 2009. Months ago we obtained permits for sixth anniversary demonstrations. ANSWER has been actively involved with other coalitions, organizations, and networks to organize unified anti-war demonstrations in the spring of 2009. ANSWER participated in the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations that was held in Cleveland, Ohio on June 28th-29th and attended by 450 people, including many national and local anti-war coalitions. The National Assembly gathering agreed to promote national, unified anti-war demonstrations in the Spring of 2009.

The war in Iraq has killed, wounded or displaced nearly a third of Iraq’s 26 million people. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have been killed and hundreds of thousands more have suffered severe physical and psychological wounds. The cost of the war is now running at $700 million dollars per day, over $7,000 per second. The U.S. leaders who have initiated and conducted this criminal war should be tried and jailed for war crimes.

The war in Afghanistan is expanding, and both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and Congressional leaders have promised to send in more troops. Both have promised to increase the size of the U. S. military. Both have promised to increase military aid to Israel to continue its oppression of the Palestinian people, including the denial of the right of return.

While millions of families are losing their homes, jobs and healthcare, the real military budget next year will top one trillion dollars, $1,000,000,000,000. If used to meet people’s needs, that amount could create 10 million new jobs at $60,000 per year, provide healthcare for everyone who does not have it now, rebuild New Orleans and repair much of the damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Federal bailouts of the biggest banks and investors many of whom have also made billions in profits from militarism, are already up to an astounding $2.5 trillion this year. None of that money is earmarked for keeping millions of foreclosed and evicted families in their homes.

Coming just two months after the inauguration of the next president, March 21, 2009 will be a critical opportunity to let the new administration in Washington hear the voice of the people demanding justice.

Click this link to endorse the March 21 Actions
If you're planning a local March 21 anti-war action, let us know by clicking this link.

That was mentioned in Monday's snapshot and will be noted in the snapshots as it draws nearer. But, as Zack points out, the so-called 'movement' is "pretty damn pathetic right now and noting what A.N.S.W.E.R. has planned might clue people in that some are still working to end the illegal war." Good point. In Monday's snapshot, we also linked to Debra Sweet's "Going Forward in Stopping the Crimes of Your Government" (World Can't Wait) and we'll note a section of it here:


Some hard facts & questions:

What is there to celebrate in an Obama presidency? Making us feel good about the country again when Obama is trying to unite us to behind what he calls "the good war" in Afghanistan? While people in the US were lining up to vote, a US air strike on an Afghan wedding party killed 34 civilians. Another strike killed 7 more yesterday.

Obama, the "anti-war" candidate, wants to leave 50 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, and move more combat brigades to Afghanistan. He promises to increase the US military by 92,000, ready to project American empire further on the lives of kids in high school now. Obama proposed sending drones and special forces into Pakistan - a sovereign country - and the Bush regime secretly began attacks on Pakistan in July, which have killed scores of civilians, as part of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

How could we celebrate "national unity" when Obama's vote for the FISA law opens the way for unprecedented political repression and spying on the people? People expected Obama, who taught Constitutional law, to protect their rights, but Obama went out of his way to make an unpopular vote to bolster the "war on terror" and set the basis for expanded political repression. He voted for an amended USA PATRIOT Act that had more draconian curbs on political protest than the 2001 version.

How can we feel Obama is "for the people" when he put all his backing behind the bailout of Wall Street banks, but tells the people only to have faith in their leaders? When he supports the notoriously racist death penalty, and blames Black people themselves for the huge prison population? When he finds "common ground" with the most rabid Christian fundamentalist plans to do away with abortion and gay marriage? The ban on gay marriage passed in California, benefiting from Obama's expressed opposition to gay marriage.

In the face of huge crimes perpetrated by the Bush regime,.Obama said, "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority."

There is a responsibility and a way for us to act:

This is not the time to "wait and see" what Obama will do after January 20, or after 6 months or a year...or never, because if he does what's in the peoples' interests he won't be re-elected? He's telling us what he will do, and the worst thing would be to get passive in the face of more crimes being done in our name.

There is a force to join with that will firmly oppose this program. World Can't Wait will be here, organizing a movement of resistance with a realistic aim -- to bring these crimes and this whole direction to a stop. If you don't want to join us now, remember what we're saying, and when it does become clear to you that the crimes of your government - not matter who is president -- have to be stopped, join with the kind of movement that CAN make that happen.

We'll note an action this weekend:

The San Francisco rally against Prop 8 this weekend is part of a nationwide mobilization -- a peaceful demonstration in support of marriage equality in California. For a full list of rallies throughout the state and country, check out the Join the Impact website.

San Francisco rally details:

• Where: San Francisco City Hall
• When: November 15, 2008 - 10:30a to 1:30p

And from Join The Impact, the following will be holding actions as well:

This Saturday, November 15, 2008, Join the Impact in EVERY single state in America. Click your state below to learn more.

Alabama	Indiana	Nebraska	South Carolina
Alaska	Iowa	Nevada	South Dakota
Arizona	Kansas	New Hampshire	Tennessee
Arkansas	Kentucky	New Jersey	Texas
California	Louisiana	New Mexico	Utah
Colorado	Maine	New York	Vermont
Connecticut	Maryland	North Carolina	Virginia
Delaware	Massachusetts	North Dakota	Washington
Florida	Michigan	Ohio	Washington DC
Georgia	Minnesota	Oklahoma	West Virginia
Hawaii	Mississippi	Oregon	Wisconsin
Idaho	Missouri	Pennsylvania	Wyoming
Illinois	Montana	Rhode Island	*International*

Stan continues covering the topic at his site and posted "Homophobia" last night. And swiping from his site to grab the latest community posts:

• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Jeff Cohen the Damned Liar

  11 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  john pilger, heroes, more

  11 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Homophobia

  11 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Oink, oink cry the pigs of the press

  11 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  No auto bailout

  11 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  America dodged a close one!

  11 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! DISAPPOINTMENTS SET IN!

  11 hours ago

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
the new york times
katherine zoepf
mudhafer al-husaini
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
ernesto londono
dan balz
janet hook
wbai
cat radio cafe
janet coleman
david dozer
vivian gornick
60 minutes
cbs news
karen tumulty
washington week
now on pbs
pbs
a.n.s.w.e.r.
debra sweet
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

The treaty and two countries prepare to leave Iraq

It was a dawn of the dead - Blair left behind him the almost unimaginable horror of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A rare poll conducted by Ipsos last January of 754 Iraqi refugees in Syria found that "every single person interviewed by Ipsos reported experiencing at least one traumatic event in Iraq prior to their arrival in Syria."

UNHCR estimated that one in five of those registered with the agency in Syria over the previous year were classified as "victims of torture and/or violence." The survey showed that fully 89 per cent of those interviewed suffered depression and 82 per cent anxiety. This was linked to terrors endured before they fled Iraq – 77 per cent of those interviewed reported being affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks. Eighty per cent had witnessed a shooting... and so on.

John Pilger was a lonely voice in 1997 warning that Blair was a dangerous fraud, a neocon in sheep's clothing. As Pilger later pointed out, the media could hardly plead ignorance:

Blair’s Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known…³

Over the past two weeks -- one decade and three wars later -- the same media have been insisting, as one, that US president-elect Barrack Obama is another "new dawn". A Guardian leader observed:

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world…

Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America’s hope and, in no small way, ours too.

In the Guardian's news section, Oliver Burkeman described the victory as "historic, epochal, path breaking". But there was more:

"Just being alive at a time when it’s so evident that history is being made was elating and exhausting."

In 2003, the Guardian's foreign editor, Ed Pilkington, told us:

"We are not in the business of editorialising our news reports."⁴

Someone forgot to tell Burkeman, indeed the entire Guardian news team. At times like these, the media's claims to balanced coverage seem to belong to a different universe. Over the last two weeks, the public has been subjected to a one-way delusional deluge by the media. The propaganda is such that comments made by independent US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, appear simply shocking:

What we're seeing is the highest level of resignation and apathy and powerlessness I've ever seen. We're not talking about hoopla. We're not talking about 'hope'. We’re not talking about rhetoric. We're not talking about 'rock star Obama'. We’re talking about the question that is asked everywhere I go: 'What is left for the American people to decide other than their own personal lives under more restrictive circumstances year after year?' And the answer is: almost nothing.⁵

Nader says of Obama: "This is show business what you’re seeing." The crucial point: "Obama doesn't like to take on power."⁵

the washington post

ernesto londono

dana priest

warren p. strobel

media lens

john pilger