Tuesday, November 18, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the treaty dance continues, Iraq corruption continues and look who is firing the auditors, and more.     Starting with the treaty masquearding as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  Chris Floyd (Baltimore Chronicle) steps up to talk realities:   The American media is by and large swallowing the propaganda line that the Iraqi cabinet's acquiescense to a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with the U.S. occupation force means that the Iraq War will be over in in 2011.  This will further cement the conventional wisdom that the suppurating war crime in Iraq is now behind us, and the topic will be moved even further off the radar of public scrutiny.     But as usual, there is a wide, yawning abyss between the packaged, freeze-dried pabulum for public consumption and thhe gritty, blood-flecked truth on the ground.  As Jason Ditz reports at Antiwar.com, the so-called "deadline" in 2011 for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces remains, as ever, an "aspiration," not an iron-clad guarantee.  The pace and size of the bruited "withdrawal" will remain, as ever, "conditions-based," says Pentagon and White House officials -- a position long echoed by the "anti-war" president-elect.  And as we all know, "conditions" in a war zone are always subject to radical, unexpected change.   And Campbell Robertson and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) deserve credit for this bit of reporting today on the treaty, "The concessions included establishing deadlines for withdrawing combat forces from Iraqi cities by naext June and from the county by the end of 2011, though officials said the text of the agreement included language that made those dates less rigid deadlines."  While they note US Rep Bill Delahunt, they fail to note the most important detail from the press release his office issued last week:   Next week's hearing will examine the possibility that any bilateral agreement reached between the Bush Administration and the government of Iraq may effectively 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.   The hearing is tomorrow and starts at ten a.m. The most important part is "a clause in Article 31 in a draft of the accord that would prohibit the United States from cancelling it [the "bilateral agreement"] for one year."  So the treaty's not all that binding.  Binding contracts do not allow either party to cancel in one year, 'binding contracts' trumpeted for what they will 'do' three years from now (2011) do not allow either party the option to cancel out starting in 2009.  Reuters reports that Ali Larijani, Iran's Speaker of Parliament, is decrying the treaty for "strengthening comprehensive U.S. hegemony in Iraq" while Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani released a statement today which includes: "The representatives of the Iraqi people in parliament must take on a big responsibility in this case and each must be up to this historic responsibility before God and the people."     The Washington Post asserts a 'change' in Barack Obama's stance on the treaty.  First let's review the public stance this year.   During the election, the Obama-Biden campaign website revealed their stance on the so-called SOFA in "Plan for Ending the War in Iraq:" The Status-of-Forces-Agreement Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval--yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Post election,  Change.gov was set up as the official website for the Barack-Biden transition and if you pull up "The Obama-Biden Plan," you will find: The Status-of-Forces Agreement Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home. That has been the official position, that Congressional approval was required and Congressional review.  However, Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) reports, "And the Obama transition team is signling that it wants Congress to review the pact, though not necessarily approve it."  That would be a huge shift from where Barack once stood.  It would also make Joe Biden look like a flat-out liar.  Or are we all supposed to forget the April 10th Senate Foreign Reltations committee he chaired where he told the State Dept's David Satterfield and the Defense Dept's Mary Beth Long that regarding their claim that the so-called SOFA didn't need Senator approval, "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on."  And are we supposed to forget Senator Russ Feingold informing Satterfield, "I would suggest your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution."  Or that Senators Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson also called out the so-called SOFA (both senators are Republicans -- there was bi-partisan objection to the Senate's Constitutional role of approving any treaty being circumvented).  Back on the Democratic side, Senator Robert Menendez pointed out this bi-partisan objection, "Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that such an agreement needs to come before Congress."   Senator Jim Webb made his position clear, "I would argue it's a document that needs Senate consent."   On both sides of the aisle, senators stood up for the Constitution (and let's not forget that they stood up in the House as well including US House Rep Susan Davis) and now this is going to be tossed aside or Barack Obama thinks it is?  That's what the Post reported this morning.  (Friends on the transition team told me this morning and this afternoon that the position has not changed and Senate approval remains the stance.  Whether that's true or not, I don't know.)     Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte spoke in Ireland yesterday where he strung together the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, "2001" and "extremism."  When the current administration leaves office will they take the direct and indirect fale-linkage of Iraq to 9-11 with him?  You'd think so but you'd also have thought that all that lip flapping in April meant something, that a Constituional scholar like Barack wouldn't be eager to spit on the Constitution before he's even sworn in; however, the Post feels their information on this is solid and Team Barack will not fight for or advocate Senate approval.  If true, he'll go into office a damn liar and never overcome it while Democrats in the Senate will be damned in the same manner.  (Russ Feingold being Russ would most likely speak out to some degree if the Senate was circumvented.  Would the rest?)  For eight years, Democrats and their media surrogates have tossed around phrases like "rule of law" and if they think they can drop them just because "their guy" got into the White House they better expect to see huge losses in both houses of Congress come November 2010.  And you can pair this potential move by Barack with Tom Burghardt's "Obama's Intelligence Agenda: More of the Same from the 'Change Administration'" (Dissident Voice): While expectations may be high that the incoming Obama administration will reverse many of the worst features of the Bush regime–from warrantless wiretapping, illegal detention, torture, "targeted assassinations" and preemptive war–now that the cheering has stopped, expect more of the same.  According to The Wall Street Journal, "President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party."  With hyperbolic "change" rhetoric in the air, Obama is relying on a gaggle of former intelligence insiders, warmed-over Clinton administration officials and "moderate" Republicans, many of whom helped Bush craft his administration's illegal policies.  With U.S. street cred at an all-time low, due in no small measure to Washington's hubristic fantasies that it really is an empire and not a rapidly decaying failed state, ruling elites have literally banked on Obama to deliver the goods.  During his run for the White House, the Illinois senator may have mildly criticized some of the administration's so-called "counterterrorism" policies including the Bushist penchant for secrecy, the disappearance of "terrorist" suspects, driftnet surveillance of American citizens and legal residents, CIA "black site" gulags and the crushing of domestic dissent.  But in the few scant days since the November 4 general election, the contours of what Democratic party corporatist grifters will roll-out come January 20 are taking shape. Citing Obama's carefully-crafted public relations blitz on the campaign trail opposing illegal spying, the Journal reports:  Yet he ... voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.    The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight. (Siobhan Gorman, "Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact," The Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2008)  The "current government official" cited by the Journal fails to specify precisely what it means to "keep the road open" when it comes to torturing prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Conventions.      Turning to England, Peter Goldsmith is in the news. Lord Goldsmith resigned as Attorney General of England and Wales June 27, 2007.  His advice to then-Prime Minister Ton Blair has been questioned for some time (PDF format warning, click here for the advice).  Yesterday Lord Thomas Bingham, speaking to The British Institute of International and Comparative Law raised Goldsmith's advice.  BBC reports he called the war "a serious violation of international law" and said Bingham provided Blaid with "no hard evidence" making a case for the war. Joshua Rozenberg (Telegraph of London) explains, "It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Tony Blair by the former Attorney General.  The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge."  Rozenberg quotes Bingham on why the decision was doubtful:   "First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months. "Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council."   Frances Gibb (Times of London) quotes Bingham stating, "Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration."  The First Post emphasizes the illegal nature of the war based on Bingham's judgement.   From illegal to corruption, September 22nd in the US, the the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing on corruption that was noted in the Sept. 23rd snapshot:   Senator Byron Dorgan: In March, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing at my request, in which we heard from a very courageous Iraqi judge who headed Iraq's Commission of Public Integrity. This agency was established by the Coalition Provisional Authority after the US invasion of Iraq, and charged with rooting out corruption in the new government. Judge al-Radhi estimated that corruption in Iraq's government had resulted in the loss of $18 billion in government funds, and most of those funds had been US tax payer dollars. Judge Radhi said that instead of supporting his efforts to fight corruption, the top levels of the Iraqi government had ultimately suppressed his investigations. [. . . ] Judge Radhi also testified that since the establishment of the Commission of Public Integrity, more than 31 employees have been assassinated as well as at least an additional 12 family members. One would have expected that our own government would have been doing everything it could to support Judge Radhi's anti-corruption efforts. But in hearing of this committee back in May, we heard from two State Dept officials who said that our own government was not interested in ensuring accountability of U.S. funds in Iraq or in rooting out corruption. In fact, one of the officials, retired judge Arthur Brenna, said that some of the stolen funds were steered to the Iraqi insurgency. Yet the administration was generally indifferent to the problem. This indifference has had deadly consequences. We will hear from witnesses today -- one of whom was Judge Radhi's chief investigator in Iraq -- about how stolen US funds have gone to al Qaeda in Iraq. Our earlier hearing with Judge Brennan showed us that the State Dept turns a blind eye when it comes to corruption. Today's hearing will show us what the State Dept turned a blind eye to -- and what the consequences have been.   Today James Glanz and Riyadh Mohammed (New York Times) report that Nouri al-Maliki continues to fire those tasked with oversight and the reporters note, "Mr. Maliki's stance on oversight was most vividly illustrated by his long-running feud with Judge Rathi al-Rathi, the former head of the Commission onf Public Integrity, an oversight agency created by the Coalition Provisional Authority.  After Mr. Rathi's corruption investigations repeatedly embarrassed the Maliki government, the prime minister's office supported corruption charges against Mr. Rathi himself."  Matt Kelley (USA Today) reports that being suspended by the government doesn't mean that you can't still get contracts as Lee Dynamics International (suspended for bribery) proves, "Contracting officers gave Lee Dynamics International a new contract in July 2007 despite warnings from military lawyers, according to a report issued by Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR). The Joint Contracting Command-Iraq did not return calls on why Lee Dynamics was awarded the new contract."  Matt Kelley also notes, "The Pentagon spent about $600 million on more than 1,200 Iraq reconstruction contracts that were eventually canceled, nearly half of them for the mismanagemnt or shoddy construciton, government inspectors say."  Reuters notes Iraq ranks number three on the most corrupt nation-state list by Transparency International Index and that the head of Iraq's Integrity Commission, Rahim al-Ugaili,  was sent out to dance for reporters today .and declare, "In 2008 we referred 337 cases to the court.  This year has seen the biggest achievement."  No word apparently on whether more corruption cases would allegedly be referred or not had al-Maliki not fired at will.  Glanz and Mohammed note:   At least two of the officials who were forced out were Christian women, Hana Shakuri of the Culture Ministry and Samia Youssef Sha'ia of the Christian Endowment.  But most are simply senior Sunni and Shiite technocrats who have been at their posts for years and in several cases were orginally appointed in 2004 by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator for the Coaliton Provisional Authority.   We'll use the women's religion to grab Liz Sly's (Chicago Tribune) report on Sunday about Iraq's Mandeans who predate Christianity and Islam ("and even perhaps Judaism") but are now "on the brink of extinction" having dropped from 30,000 in 2002 to between 3,500 and 5,000 currently:   Scattered around the world in tiny communities, the chances that the religion will survive more than a few generations are slim, experts say. Mandaeism does not accept converts, and the children of Mandaeans who marry non-Mandaeans do not belong to the sect. There are only 35 priests left in the world familiar with the elaborate ceremonies of a people who claim to be directly descended from Adam and who regard John the Baptist as their most important prophet. "It has been a catastrophe for us," said Sattar Jabar Helou, who heads the Mandaean sect worldwide. "This is one of the world's oldest religions, and it is going to die." Mandaeans, known as Sabis in Arabic, are just one of several minorities who have historically given Iraq its distinct identity as a cradle of religious diversity. All have suffered disproportionately from the spread of anarchy and extremism in the wake of the U.S. invasion. Iraq's once-substantial Christian community has seen its numbers dwindle from about 800,000 to 500,000. Yazidis, a lettuce-shunning minority that venerates the forces of good and evil, have been targeted for attacks in their enclaves along the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Shabbaks, a Muslim sect that permits alcohol and is neither Sunni nor Shiite, have been persecuted in their ancestral lands near the northern city of Mosul.   Turning to today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing inside the home "of Sadi Mahdi, a general inspector in the ministry of electriticy" which left "Sadi's son Mustafa and his wife" wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded one person, another Baghdad roadside bombing and this one left two people wounded and a Mosul car bombing that claimed 1 life and ten other people injured.  Reuters notes a Sinjar bombing that claimed 1 life and left thirteen people injured,   Shootings?   Reuters notes 5 'suspects' were shot dead in Samarra and three more wounded.   Corpses?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses discovered in Baghdad   Meanwhile Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) continues to explore service members deaths in Iraq from non-combat, "Here is today's horror story, involving Sgt. Mason Lewis of Virginia. A year ago, the military told his mom he had died in a fall. By implication: his fault. Yesterday a local TV outlet reported that the official probe has belatedly revealed: 'Army investigators discovered a poorly maintained bucket loader with no brakes and sluggish hydraulics, operated by an inexperienced crew, led to Mason's death'."   Mickey Z (at CounterCurrents) points out the little confidence game so many on the left are playing at present regarding a hopey-changey Corporatist War Hawk: And let's say Howard Zinn wrote an article that talked about what this man should do, what he hoped he'd do.  For example: "announce the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan" and "renounce the Bush doctrine of preventive war as well as the Carter doctrine of military action to control Midest oil." Also: "radically change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, declare that the U.S. is a peace loving country which will not intervene militarily in other parts of the world, and start dismantling the military bases we have in over a hundred countries.  Also he must begin meeting with Medvedev, the Russian leader, to reach agreement on the dismantling of the nuclear arsenals, in keeping with the Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty."  Then raise taxes on the rich and combine that windfall with the hundreds of billions of dollars freed from the military budget to "give free health care to everyone (and) put millions of people to work" and thus "transform" the United States and "make it a good neighbor to the world."   Well, Howard Zinn has written such an article ("Obama's Historic Victory," Nov. 12, 2208) but is anyone calling him delusional and ridiculing him for even suggesting such insane expectations?  The tens of thousands of readers who look to Zinn as a trusted voice of wisdom and reason are being dangerously misled by an article that omits the reality that every indication points to Barack Obama doing the exact opposite of what Zinn writes.  Zinn knows as well as anyone that not an iota of evidence exists that Obama would do anything approaching what is described above.  For a man of Zinn's stature on the Left to even hint of such a possibility is a shockingly irresponsible act and one that only contributes to the misguided perception that Obama's election is somehow a victory for the progressive Left.       iraq chris floyd the washington post michael abramowitz the new york times campbell robertson steven lee myers james glanz riyadh mohammed tom burghardt matt kelley liz sly mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi  greg mitchell mickey z

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

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

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 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

Iraq's political leaders held a high-level meeting on Saturday to gauge support for a security agreement that will determine the future role and presence of American forces in Iraq before crucial votes in the cabinet and Parliament.
But the most powerful Shiite bloc in Parliament, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, did not attend, and the meeting ended without any clear public resolution.

The above is from Katherine Zoepf and Atheer Kakan's "Shiite Bloc Fails to Attend Meeting on Iraq - U.S. Pact" in this morning's New York Times and they note that the decision of the council would be "a good indicator of whether the agreement will pass" in Parliament. Whether that call is correct or not, the agreement has passed the council. Adam Ashton and Leila Fadel's "Iraqi cabinet approves accord setting U.S. troop withdrawal" (McClatchy Newspapers) opens with:


Iraq's cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact that sets a timetable for the nearly complete withdrawal of American forces within three years, but the agreement faces an uncertain outlook in Iraq's parliament.
The largest Sunni party in Iraq, the Iraqi Islamic Party, wants the agreement to go to a nationwide referendum. Its affiliated parties complain that their efforts to amend the plan to require the release of detainees and to provide compensation for war victims were ignored by lawmakers who shaped the pact.
Followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr, meanwhile, view the agreement as an affirmation of the American occupation and oppose it outright.
Their dissent colors broad political momentum Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki built through the weekend after he reportedly gained new concessions from the American government. It won support from 27 of the 28 cabinet members. Nine members did not vote because they were traveling, a cabinet minister said.

Gordon Johndroe, White House flack, declared, "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."

As funny as that is, this is hilarious, Anne Penketh's "All US troops out of Iraq 'in three years'" (Independent of London):

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.
However, the security arrangement, which was negotiated for months, must still be ratified by the fractured Iraqi parliament today, and only then will it clear its final hurdle. The deal with the US raises expectations that Britain is on the point of agreeing a similar pact on the withdrawal of its 4,100 troops from southern Iraq.
"The total withdrawal will be completed by 31 December 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground. This date is specific and final," said Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi cabinet spokesman, after the meeting at which nine cabinet members failed to turn up.

Oh, is that what it says? No, that's not what it says. That's what some Iraqis believe (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. Equally true is that an actual withdrawal would make the document a treaty. Now possibly US arrogance is seen in the oh-let-the-Iraqi-Parliament-approve-it attitude, whereas there's fear of what the US Senate might uncover were they brought into the process.

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. Penketh needs to explain when she read the treaty and whom she showed it to with a background in deciphering (she's not qualified to make those determinations about a document). It's one thing to repeat what one side or the other believes and attribute it that way but reporting does not allow Penketh to report things she does not know and things she cannot determine. Again, just laugh, it's easier. In the real world, over 50 Iraqi deaths were reported yesterday and today and the US military announced the deaths of more US service members.

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)


Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4,193. And tonight? 4201 is ICCC's count. Yes, the 4200 mark was past today. The Christ-child was elected and no the world did not change. But wasn't fun and groovy to defocus from reality and turning into a screaming Beatles mob? No? You're right, it was disgusting and shameful and not at all behavior suited to so-called adults. Saturday 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." Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,284,105 the same as last Sunday and the Sunday before. Once upon a time the counter updated regularly. Those days appear long gone.

In some of the weekend's violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 3 lives and left seven injured (two dead and five wounded are "Awakening" Council members), another Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded three police officers, and a Jalwlaa car bombing that killed the driver and 15 more people with twenty others injured. McClatchy's Laith Hammoudi reported Saturday on a Baghdad sticky bombing that injured three people, another Baghdad roadside bombing that left four injured, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 3 lives and left twenty-three injured, and a Nineveh car bombing that claimed 11 lives and left thirty people injured.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Diyala Province that resulted in 9 deaths (two by bombings), five 'suspects' killed in Beijat village and 1 'suspect' killed in Khalis.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Saturday Laith Hammoudi reported 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad


New content at Third . . .

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: It's about equality
TV: No fun the house that Cosby built
The Homophobia of Barack Obama
Soon to be in the White House
Marcelo murdered by thugs, ignored by 'leaders'
Can you propagandize with all the colors of the Re...
SNL? (Ava and C.I.)
Highlights

Isaiah's latest goes up after this. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
the new york times
katherine zoepf
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
the world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review

Today the US military announced: "A Multi National Force -- West Marine died Nov.14 as the result of wounds received when an improvised explosive device detonated in al Anbar province earlier in the day." Meanwhile a US helicopter is down in Iraq. Reuters reports that the US military states the helicopter hit "overhead cables" and that caused what they are terming a "hard landing."

China's Xinhau reports a Baghdad car bombing ("near the National Theater") claimed 3 lives and left twenty-three people wounded. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded seven people and a Baghda sticky bombing that left three people injured. Tim Cocks (Reuters) notes a Tal Afar car bombing that claimed 10 lives (thirty more injured) and, on Friday, a Mosul roadside bombing that wounded a mother and son.



The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ;
and Stan's Oh Boy It Never Ends

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

iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

"I repeat my demand to the occupier to leave our land without keeping bases or signing agreements," Mr. Sadr said in a statement read to thousands of supporters at Friday Prayer. "If they keep bases, then I would support honorable resistance."
Tension is rising here over the agreement as the vote nears, even if few oppose it to the extremes of Mr. Sadr and his followers. An aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, also indicatied that he would intervene in some way if the draft did not enjoy the full support of the Iraqi people. But Ayatollah Sistani, who far outranks Mr. Sadr, has consistently advocated nonviolence.

The above is from Campbell Robertson and Suada al-Salhy's "Militan Shiite Cleric Calls for Armed Resistance to U.S. Presence in Iraq" from this morning's New York Times (A5, includes a large photo credited to AP's Khalid Mohammed of the Friday Prayer when the statement from Moqtada al-Sadr was read). We noted the statements of al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani in yesterday's snapshot. Nidaa Bakhsh (Bloomberg News) cites press chatter that tomorrow's vote will support the treaty.

John Howard was the prime minister of Australia until Kevin Rudd replaced him. Howard was very tight with the White House and rivaled UK Prime Minister Tony Blair for the title of White House lapdog. Howard was on board with the illegal war and now that he is out of office, the Australian press is attempting to evaluate and investigate his leadership. From "No evidence justifying sending troops to Iraq: former ADF chief" (Australia's ABC):

Former prime minister John Howard has told ABC1's The Howard Years program that the decision to send troops was the most difficult he made.
While the claims that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong, Mr Howard says he does not believe that he took the country to war based on a lie.
But former Admiral Chris Barrie, who retired as ADF chief in July 2002, has told the same program he did not see compelling evidence for the war which was launched the following year.
"I have to say, even up until the day I retired, I never saw any evidence that said suddenly we had to go off and do a job in Iraq," he said.

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

iraq
the new york times
campbell robertson
bloomberg news