 |
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Wednesday,
November 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Turkey meets with Iraq
over PKK (US tags along), the US Congress explores the treaty, and more. "This
is the eighth in a series of hearings which the Subcommittee has held
on the Bush administration's efforts to consummate what was initially
described as a long-term security agreement with the government of
Iraq," declared US House Rep Bill Delahunt as he brought the
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to order today. The topic
was the treaty the White House is trying to make with their puppets in
Iraq. Delahunt noted he shared "the concerns expressed by the Chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, our friend and colleague Ike Skelton,
who has been quoted as being 'deeply troubled' because the agreement
contains, as he says, 'vague language that will cause misunderstandings
and conflict between the United States and Iraq in the future'." Rep
Bill Delahunt: And by the way, no one should forget that this agreement
has just been provided to Congress -- and that there has been no time
to conduct the analysis required by such a significant document -- one
that purports to end a conflict that has had such momentous and tragic
consequences for both the Iraqi and the American people. And remember
there has been no meaningful consultation with Congress during the
negotiation of this agreement. And the American people, for all
intents and purposes, have been kept completely left out. Even now the
National Security Council has requested that we do not show this
document to our witnesses or release it to the public -- a public that
for over five years has paid so dearly with blood and treasure. Now I
find that incredible. Meantime, the Iraqi government has posted this
document on its media website so that anybody who can read Arabic can
take part in the public discourse. But this is typical of the Bush
administration and its unhealthy and undemocratic obsession with
secrecy. Delahunt went on to outline three things that had to take place for the treaty to be legal: 1)
The Iraqi Parliament enacts by a two-thirds majority -- 184 of its 275
members -- a law governing the ratification of international agreements. 2)
The Iraqi Parliament then enacts the proposed bilateral security
agreement under that ratification law -- which as introduced this past
Monday in their Parliament also would require a two-thirds vote of
approval, and 3)
The United States Congress enacts a law that approves and implements
the security agreement -- and authorizes offensive combat operations by
US forces. Oona A. Hathaway, Raed Jarrar, Michael Matheson, Issam Michael Saliba AEI's Thomas Donnelly offered testimony to the committee. One
issue that arose was the possibility of extending the United Nations
Security Council mandate (the mandate expires December 31st). Jarrar
explained that there had been resistance in the past to extending the
mandate; however, today it is seen by proponents in Iraq "as the lesser
of two evils, but not as a strategic goal. Many Iraqi groups in the
Parliament think it is better to give the Parliament more time to
debate the agreement rather than just rushing it within the next few
weeks." Matheson, professor at George Washington University Law
School, also spoke of the mandate and noted that a UN mandate could
take place under Chapter 7 (as has been done) or under Chapter 6.
Saliba is a Senior Foreign Law Specialist with the Law Library of
Congress and his focus was the approval mechanism in the Parliament
which eh found to require support of two-thirds of the MPs ("it is
logical to conclude that the ratification of an agreement negotiated by
the Iraqi government needs a two-thirds majority of all members of
Parliament for its ratification"). "I will
focus my remarks on what I believe are the three most pressing legal
issues regarding the proposed bilateral agreement with Iraq,"
declared Professor Oona Hathaway of UC Berkeley's School of Law in her
opening statements. "There are, of course, many others I'm happy to
talk about. And then I'll conclude by outlining what I think are the
possible ways for addressing these concerns." 1)
"The agreement in my view threatens to undermine the Constitutional
powers of President-elect Obama as commander-in-chief and it does so in
two ways. a) So first this agreement gives operational
control to a Joint Military Operations Coordination Committee which is
made up of Iraqis and Americans and is jointly led by both sides
according to the agreement." The concern of
Hathaway is that before US commanders could engage in military
operations in the field they would have to receive approval from the
JMOCC with only an exception for self-defense. Hathaway noted this was
unprecedented and that US command control has never been handed out
over to foreign powers other than a very narrow peace keeping situation
approved by the Congress. b) "The proposed
agreement also undermines the Constitutional powers of President-elect
Obama as commander in chief by binding him to observe specific
timetables that are outlined in the agreement for the withdrawal of US
troops." Oona Hathaway: Here the
specifics of the timetables are fairly clear, it's sixteen months for
withdrawal from the cities, towns and villages and three years
withdrawal from Iraq. What is uncertain is what President-elect Obama
would have to do if he wanted to withdraw early. There are two
different texts that we are working with. One is a translation of the
Arabic language text which has been -- as Chairman Delahunt said --
made available by the Iraqi government. That text says the following,
it says, "The United States recognizes Iraq's sovereign right to
request a US forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time. The Iraqi
government recognizes the United States' sovereign right to request a
United States forces withdrawal from Iraq at any time." So the
language here seems to me suggest the United States can request the
right to withdrawal but cannot simply withdraw early. And if that is
in fact what the agreement says then that creates serious concerns
because, of course, President-elect Obama campaigned on a promise of
withdrawing forces much earlier than three years and this would seem to
require him to get the approval of the Iraqi government in order to
actually carry out that promise. Now the English language version
which I just received last night states what seems to be quite
different, it states the following, "The government of Iraq recognizes
the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States
forces from Iraq at any time." So there is -- that seems to give much
more leeway to the president to withdraw troops earlier though, of
course, if conditions on the ground turn out to make it difficult or
impossible or unsafe to withdraw troops earlier than three years he
would have to obtain the approval of the Iraqi government in order to
keep troops in the country longer. In any case, this raises obvious
concerns about which of these texts we should be believing and whether
they in fact say the same thing. But the basic concern I have here is
that this agreement commits the president to abide by timetables that
he has had no role in shaping and may even make it more difficult for
him to meet his campaign promise of bringing troops home within sixteen
to eighteen months. 2) "The
conclusion of this agreement without any Congressional involvement is
unprecedented and, in my view, unconstitutional." Oona
Hathaway: So presidents can enter into agreements on their own --
they're called Sole Executive Agreements. But these agreements must be
within the president's own independent powers. This agreement goes far
beyond the president's own independent, Constitutional powers in
several ways. Now the administration has responded to this critique in
the past by saying, "This is simply a Status Of Forces Agreement -- a
SOFA. We've got hundreds -- we've got more than a hundred of these
around the world. All of these have been concluded as Sole Executive
Agreements entered by the president by himself. So what are you so
concerned about?" And the answer is: This is not a SOFA. This is, in
fact, a much more comprehensive agreement than any Status of Forces
Agreement that is out there and includes a variety of provisions that,
as far as I'm aware -- and I've read about sixty to eighty of these
agreements, that have never been a part of any Status Of Forces
Agreement. In particular the provisions granting authority to US
troops to engage in military operations, the grant of power over
military operations to this joint committee that I mentioned
earlier and the specification of timetables for withdrawal of military
forces. These are unprecedented in a standard Status Of Forces
Agreement, have never been part of a standard Status Of Forces
Agreement and extend, in my view, far beyond what the the President can
do without obtaining Congressional approval. The administration has
also suggested that the agreement doesn't really grant the authority to
fight and therefore it does not need to be approved by Congress. In my
view that is manifestly incorrect. This agreement is -- the entire
purpose is to grant the authority to fight. It is meant to replace the
UN mandate. The UN mandate is the authority under which US troops are
currently present in Iraq and the entire reason for the proposal of the
agreement at this time is because that mandate is about to expire and
when it does there will no longer be a legal authority for the United
States troops to be present in Iraq. This agreement gives in fact
gives that authority to fight to replace the UN mandate. So to suggest
that it doesn't do that and therefore need not be approved by Congress
clearly is not correct. 3) "If the
administration proceeds as planned the war will likely become illegal
under United States law when the UN mandate expires on December 31st." Oona
Hathaway: At present, domestic legal authority for the war in Iraq is
based on House Joint Resolution 114 which was passed in October of
2002. The resolution authorizes the president to use the armed forces
for two purposes. One, to defend the national security of the United
States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and two to enforce
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding
Iraq. And let me take the second first. The second is, in my view,
what is currently operative at this moment. There is a Security
Council resolution in effect that is currently governing the presence
of US troops and, therefore, it is the case that, in fact, we are --
that the president may enforce all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq as long as that resolution is in
effect this domestic legal authority is also in effect. But when the
mandate expires at the end of the year -- as it is due to expire --
that no longer, that legal basis for the war in Iraq no longer exists.
So then we're left with the first part of the authorization: To defend
the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq. Now this was enacted, remember, in 2002 when
Saddam Hussein was in power and we were hearing about threats of
Weapons of Mass Destruction. And so it was clear what the threat posed
by Iraq was, it was posed by the government of Iraq. Of course, that
government has changed and those same threats to the United States do
not exist. And, in fact, the bilateral agreement with Iraq recognizes
this change. That agreement itself states that, "The danger posed to
international peace and stability by the former Iraqi government is now
gone." So this agreement, to my mind, says what we all know to be true
which is that the threat that this resolution was meant to address has
been resolved and there no longer is this threat by the government of
Iraq against the United States. So once this mandate expires at the end
of the year -- if it is not renewed -- then legal authority for the war
in Iraq as a matter of United States' law no longer exists. So what do
we do? And this is where I am going to end. There are, in my view,
two legal options available. The first, as Chairman Delahunt
mentioned, is renewal of the UN mandate. A simple renewal of the
mandate for six months would address all these problems. It would give
legal authority as a matter of international law for US troops to be
present but it would also extend authority as a matter of US
law because the resolution that I just mentioned clearly incorporates
any future Security Council resolutions and extensions of those
resolutions. So that is a very real and I think one of the best
options available. There's' a second possible option as well which is
submitting this agreement to Congress for approval. If Congress were
to approve this agreement then all these concerns would also be
addressed, then this would no longer be a Sole Executive Agreement and
the Congress would have had a chance to address, consider and respond
to the concerns that might be raised about the substance of the
agreement and if it chooses to approve the agreement, these
Constitutional and legal concerns that I've raised would be addressed. During
questioning, US House Rep Lynn Woolsey noted "It is clear to me that
there are many interpretations of what this treaty/agreement is." It
would be wise for those in the press who continue to miss that point to
pause and consider that. We'll focus on this section of the hearing
between Woolsey and Hathaway. Rep Lynn
Woolsey: What is the legal standing? Will an agreement/treaty be --
have standing if it does not come before the House of Representatives
of the Congress in general? Oona
Hathaway: Well this is a complicated question as you might imagine. In
my view it would be unconstitutional because it would extend beyond the
president's power to conclude an agreement under his own independent
powers and for all the reasons we've discussed it clearly goes beyond
those limits. The question is: How would you challenge it? How would
you demonstrate that? One possibility, obviously, is a resolution in
Congress, another is a challenge in the courts -- that's unlikely to
succeed. So the likely result would be that we would be operating
under an unconstitutional agreement and what worries me is not only
that -- although that is quite worrisome in and of itself -- but the
precedent that that sets. So we then set a precedent that the
president can enter into an agreement to commit US troops without
having to get the assent of Congress. And, moreover, that the limits
that we all thought applied to Sole Executive Agreements, the limits
that had been observed by presidents for a generation on agreements
that are entered into by presidents on their own no longer apply. All
bets are off. So could President Obama enter Kyoto on his own? Could
he enter the Law of the Sea Treaty on his own? If we don't know what
the limits are, it creates real questions about where those -- where
the Constitutional limits are? If they're not going to be observed then
that creates problems not just in this instance but in every future
case as well. Rep Lynn Woolsey: So how do you think we can untangle this mess? Oona
Hathaway: My view is I think that this legislation is very positive. I
think that, if in fact something like that were to pass demanding that
Congress approve the agreement, I think that could have a significant
effect. As I said, that would address all the questions that I've
raised about the procedural issues. Congress could work out the
substantive concerns if it had any about the agreement. But if this
agreement were approved by Congress -- and there's nothing that would
stop the president, I should say, from simply submitting this agreement
as it is for approval as what's called an ex post
congressional-executive agreement. That is a legal procedure that is
available to the president and then this Congress would be able to pass
that through majority votes in both houses and then it would become a
legal agreement with the seal of approval of Congress and would be
federal law and address all the concerns that I've raised. So that, to
my mind, is a very real and, I think, would be an extremely positive
development though, sadly I'm afraid, not entirely realistic. Another
possibility is, of course, a renewal of the UN mandate because that
does address both the international and domestic law issues that I've
raised. In effect, that kicks the ball down the road because then we
still have the issue of 'then what do we do?' That mandate would only
be in effect for a short period of time -- the period of time talked
about is six months. You'd have to enter an agreement then. My hope
would be that given the stated position of the president-elect and vice
president-elect on this issue that they would not only negotiate a good
agreement but would submit that to Congress for approval. "There's
something strange" Rep Howard Byrne noted that the Iraqi Parliament was
expected to approve or not but the US Congress wasn't and that the
Iraqi Parliament and people can see the treaty but, in the US, Congress
is not allowed to release it to the American people. We'll also note this exchange between Raed Jarrar and the subcommittee chair Bill Delahunt. Bill
Delahunt: I'm just going to ask Mr. Jarrar a question. One of the
concerns that I have to go to the issue of the vote in Iraq on the
so-called implementation or ratification law. I -- My reading and the
statements that I've noticed from the Speaker of the Council of
Representatives and the legal committee of the Iraqi Parliament are
clear that a two-thirds vote is required. In your testimony, you
indicated that there is now discussion about a simple majority. If in
the end, there's a vote of approval by a simple majority, in your
opinion, could this provoke unrest and violence in Iraq predicated on
the opinion of some including elements in Iraq that are hostile to our
interests. Could this provoke them to cause mischief, if you will?
And provide them a rational which would be: Look, they're circumventing
the law and yet they preach respect for the rule of law and democracy. Raed
Jarrar: Before I answer the question, let me just state very clearly
that the Iraqi Constitutional Court has not been formed yet. So the
Iraqi Constitutional Court that is supposed to deal with such questions
-- now, this is just another sign of how premature this bilateral
agreement is. It's falling on a very unprepared regime in Iraq that
still has a lot of its basic components uncreated -- they were not
created yet. Now the fact that -- the mere fact that the agreement was
sent to Parliament was not sent because there is a respect of the
Constitution or a following of the Iraqi law as it were. Actually it
was sent by coincidence, I think, because one of the major religious
leaderships in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani insisted that the law must be
sent to the Parliament. The Iraqi executive branch lobbyied for months
with Ayatollah Sistani that I think has nothing to do with politics in
Iraq but it seems like the Iraqi executive branch disagrees with me.
They lobbyied for months that they should just sign the agreement as an
executive memo rather than sending it to the Parliament. He said no.
That's why they sent it to the Parliament. So there is no real respect
of the Constitution or laws and this I think should create a case that
if it's worrisome that maybe next year they will create the
Constituional Court to look back and say this bilateral agreement with
the US is void actually -- don't mean anything. And that will put
everyone in a status of limbo I'm sure. And that's why many people are
saying a multilateral agreement -- like the United Nations is more
guaranteed for both sides. Now regarding the particular question of
increased violence there is an overwhelming rejection of signing an
agreement with the US regardless of its content and this is not --
we're not talking about marginal groups in the Parliament or outside
the Parliament. We have major Ayatollahs, the major Ayatollahs from
the Shi'ite side like Ayatollah [al- Baqdadi, Ayatollah Shirzai or
Ayatollah Haeri" ?] who have given a fatawa against signing the
agreement, a religious order against signing the agreement. From the
Sunni side it's the same. The major mainstream Sunni leadership has
given fatawas against signing the agreement. So there is rejection
regardless of the content of it Inside the Parliament, this rejection
can be seen in all kinds of components in the Iraq groups, whether they
were Sunni, Shi'ites or seculars there is resistance to signing the
agreement. Now I think Ayatollah Sistani's as a very moderate voice,
actually asked for a national consensus. He said all major groups, all
major political groups must agree on this. Delahunt
made his position clear during the hearing, "What we do now could very
well be referred to at some future date much to our chagrin if we don't
stand up and take some sort of action. My option is extend the UN
mandate because that solves all of these issues. It protects our
troops. It provides the authority to conduct offensive military
operations." It
is not clear that all 150,000 American troops will be gone in three
years. "There is a provision for an extension by agreement of both
sides," a senior U.S. official said this week, speaking on the
condition of anonymity. The Iraqis could decide they see a continuing
role for U.S. troops, he said. "They have every right to ask us for
such a presence."
The role of U.S. troops in Iraqi cities after July
may also be greater than the agreement implies. The details of the
troops' activities would be worked out in negotiations between the
Iraqi and American military, the senior official said. Campbell Robertson (New York Times) notes
that Nouri al-Maliki went on TV yesterday and insisted "there were no
secret side agreements to the" treaty. He moved his lips so well, it
might have seemed as though the puppet were speaking his own words on
Iraqi TV. AFP reports
that (today) Moqtada al-Sadr supporters (Shi'ites) banged on the tables
to drown out Hassan al-Sined today as he attempted to read the treaty
outloud to the Parliament. The moment was broadcast on TV (which
quickly killed the feed) and Fala Shanshal has stated that guards of
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari beat up MP Ahmed al-Masaudi. The treaty
is scheduled to be read to Parliament on Thursday when they reconvene.
We noted Michael Abramowitz' report yesterday that Barack would be shelving the cry for Senate approval (of the treaty). Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) details
how the transition site set up by Barack has already altered the
position on Senate approval. Let's wait and see how long before such
alleged champions of the Constitution Matty Rothschild and Katty
van-van Heuvel speak out. (Chances are they'll both remain impotent and
silent. Remember, the Constitution only matters when Democrats aren't
in control with their kind.) [And, yes, Raed's post does back up
Michael's reporting. Hurriyet reports that 1 "Turkish army officer was killed and five soldiers were injured" in armed clashes with the PKK today. Hurriyet also reports
that, "Turkey, Iraq and the United States agreed Wednesday to form a
joint committee to combat the terror organization PKK, which uses
northern Iraq as a base for attacks on Turkey." Reuters notes
the meet-up took place in Baghdad and "The delegations were headed by
Iraqi Minister of State for National Security Shirwan al-Waeli, Turkish
Interior Minister Besir Atalay and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and
included both civilian and military officials, the U.S. embassy said."
UPI quotes
al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali Dabbagh stating the committee would be
"creating deterrent measures to stop any possible activities by this
organization inside Iraqi territory or within the Iraqi-Turkish border
areas." In other diplomatic news, yesterday
Iraq's Foreign Ministry undersecretary Labeed Abbawi met in Baghdad
with Shoji Ogawa (Japan's Ambassador to Iraq) as part of a continued
process over the last few days. On Monday, the Ministry threw a reception for Martin Eshbakher, Switzerland's Ambassador to Iraq and this took place as Sweden sent their Minister of Trade, Ewa Bjorling, to Iraq for a meeting with the Ministry's Minister Hoshyar Zebari. Monday also saw Zebari meet with Hassan Kazemi who is Iran's Ambassador to Iraq. The Foreign Ministry also highlighted their Embassy in Brussels recent participation in Arab Cultural Week. And AFP reports
a meet-up in Jordan Thursday among "U.N. and Arab League officials" and
"[e]xperts from Iraq, Syira, Lebanon and Egypt" as well as reps from
Turkey and Iran to discuss the Iraqi refugee crisis. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
two Baghdad roadside bombings which wounded five people, a Mosul
roadside bombing left two soldiers injured, a Mosul car bombing that
claimed the life of the driver and left two Iraqi soldiers injured and
a Samarra "magnetic" bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer. Shootings? Corpses? |
Posted at 03:02 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The Imperial Presidency With Cavity Fighting Fluoride Protection!
Maryland
State Police labeled members of a Montgomery County environmental group
as terrorists and extremists days after they held a nonviolent protest
at an appearance by then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. at a Bethesda high
school.Police files
released to the activists reveal that the governor's security detail
alerted the state police's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division
to what troopers guarding Ehrlich described as "aggressive protesting"
by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network in 2005.A
review by The Washington Post of those and other files given in recent
days to many of the 53 Maryland activists who were wrongly labeled as
terrorists in state and federal databases shows an intelligence
operation eager to collect information on the protest plans of a broad
swath of nonviolent groups from 2005 to at least early 2007.Those
groups included not only death penalty and Iraq war protesters who were
spied on by undercover troopers in a 2005-06 surveillance operation
exposed in July, but also those who opposed abortion, the manufacture
of cluster munitions, globalization and the government's expansion of
biodefense research at Fort Detrick. The above is the opening of Lisa Rein and Josh White's " Many Groups Spied Upon In Md. Were Nonviolent" ( Washington Post).
And with such scary news, it sure is a lucky break that we've got a
Gerry Ford in to make us all believe in a corrupt government again! Repeating Michael Abramowitz' report that Barack would be shelving the cry for Senate approval (of the treaty) is backed up by Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) who details
how the transition site set up by Barack has already altered the
position on Senate approval. And no our so-called 'left' (Katty and
Matty et al) will not say a word. Howard Zinn won't say one damn word.
Marjorie Cohn will plaster that idiotic grin on her face and look as if
she's in search of Jim Jones. That's how a Gerry Ford works. He's a transition figure. Brought in just to restore faith in a corrupt system. So
since the election, Barack's decided the Constitution doesn't matter
(no need for Senate approval of a treaty) and he's pissed off
Guantanamo attorneys (who, honestly, deserve it for endorsing him --
you get what you deserve when you endorse someone whose history does
not back up his words, you got played, shouldn't have gone home with
the first man who offered to buy you a drink). Elaine covered last night
how the White House is being told not to worry about breaking the law
(including international law) by implementing and overseeing torture. Ford
pardoned Tricky Dick. The Bully Boy didn't need a pardon because the
Democrats and their 'left' voices were too damn chicken to impeach, too
cowardly. So this generation's Gerry will just busy himself making sure
the empire has a toothy smile. Remember all the lectures we've
gotten for months and months and years and years about the rule of law?
It no longer matters. That was all garbage tossed out to get you to
vote Democrat and it's why those 'brave' 'left' voices aren't screaming
their heads off right now as Barack indicates that toothy is the only
real difference between him and Bully Boy: The Imperial Presidency With
Cavity Fighting Fluoride Protection! And a great minty taste! For those in doubt, refer to Chris Floyd's " The Era of Magical Thinking: SOFA Smokescreens and Presidential Power" ( Baltimore Chronicle): Of
course, going this far into the weeds on the details of the "agreement"
ignores the fact that the entire process is actually a brutal sham.
Disregarding for a moment the murderous nature of the Hitlerian war crime
perpetrated on Iraq by the American government -- which removes the
situation from any kind of "normal" considerations of diplomacy -- what
we have here are negotiations dealing directly with the very essence of
a nation's sovereignty, and America's continuing, intimate -- and armed
-- involvement in that nation's life. It is absurd in the extreme to
pretend that this is not a treaty-level matter, requiring full debate
and a vote in the Senate, but simply a side issue to be left up to the
President's discretion. Yet that is
the case. Bush makes the deal alone -- after all, as Obama continually
reminds us, "we only have one president," and even if he is a twerpish,
murdering, nation-gutting son of a bitch, we should all defer
respectfully to his judgment. All Obama asks
is that any agreement to extend the war crime in Iraq will provide
"sufficient protections for our men and women in uniform." As for
"sufficient protections" for the Iraqi men and women -- and children --
out of uniform, who have been killed and displaced by the millions, our
singular president and his successor have little to say. As always,
they play no part in these high affairs of state. And neither,
apparently, do the American people, or their elected representatives. But
all of this is entirely in keeping with our cowed and craven
post-Republic era, where in the end, all must yield to the prerogatives
of the "commander-in-chief." The constant use of this title as a
synonym for "the presiden"t is yet another mark of our democratic
degradation. For of course the president is only the commander-in-chief
of the armed forces in wartime -- not the military commander of the
entire country. It has been astonishing to see the erasure of this
distinction not only in the popular mind but also among our powerful
elites. It is one of the clearest expressions of the true state of the
Union: a nation that has willingly submitted itself to rule by a
military junta, surrendering, without a shot, the liberties it once
claimed as its very raison d'etre. So now we lurch from election to election, hoping that this time
we will get a "good" commander, a benevolent tyrant. Witness the
plethora of recent articles in our most august journals, wondering
anxiously what Obama will do about the concentration camp in
Guantanamo, and issue of "preventive" indefinite detention, and the
torture techniques instituted by Bush, and the secret, warrantless
wiretapping of the American people, and the "signing statements" that
ignore the Constitutional authority of the elected legislature and
impose the arbitrary will of the president, and all the other
authoritarian powers now claimed by the Unitary Executive. In
other news, we've noted Lance Hering before. He disappeared over two
years ago. He was arrested last week. Denver News Story's " Police: Missing Marine, Dad Photographed Together In September" notes: A
photo album of Lance Hering's showed him with his father and Kimberly
Pace -- the woman he was saying goodbye to when he was arrested at a
Washington airport Sunday -- at a festival in Nevada two months ago,
the Boulder Daily Camera reported on Wednesday.The
three were photographed attending Nevada's Burning Man festival in
September, according to an arrest report released Tuesday.I'm
failing to see how a non-violent offender (Hering went AWOL and also
had some burglary issue from 2004) warrants the government going after
a parent or how they think it helps them with the PR war. Rob
Ollikainen's " Planning to surrender, AWOL Marine says" ( Peninsula Daily News): Lance
Hering, the Colorado Marine who faked his disappearance for more than
two years, told police he had planned to turn himself in before he was
arrested with his father at William R. Fairchild International Airport
on Sunday.The Port Angeles
Police Department released a report Tuesday containing statements from
the 23-year-old estranged lance corporal that say he was on his way to
see a psychiatrist in Virginia and an attorney in Texas before turning
himself in at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in Oceanside, Calif.Hering,
an Iraq war veteran who disappeared on Aug. 30, 2006, near Boulder,
Colo. -- setting off the largest search in Boulder County, Colo.,
history -- was based at Camp Pendleton.Iraqi refugees are in the news. AFP reports
a meet-up in Jordan Thursday among "U.N. and Arab League officials" and
"[e]xperts from Iraq, Syira, Lebanon and Egypt" as well as reps from
Turkey and Iran to discuss the Iraqi refugee crisis. And AFP notes: Returnees
are generally people with no other choice, according to Damascus-based
Peter Harling of the International Crisis Group, co-author of a recent
report on Iraqi refugees."Only those who no longer have the means to survive in Syria are going back," he said."The
great majority remain cautious, and those who can stay here or in
Jordan do so while waiting to see how the situation evolves."Statistics
from the Iraqi ministry for migrants and the displaced show that some
8,000 Iraqis have returned from abroad since the beginning of the year.United NationsHigh
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures show that during October just
280 refugees returned home, among them 125 from Syria and 103 from
Jordan.Convoys of returning
Iraqis leave Amman once or twice a month, but the chance to go home
rarely attracts more than a few dozen people. The most recent convoy
arrived on Sunday in Baghdad and comprised 91 refugees, the UNHCR said.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq the washington post lisa rein josh whitechris floyd rob ollikainenlike maria said paz
Posted at 06:59 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Maliki
said the agreement was "a first step to regain Iraq's sovereignty
completely within three years." The document sets a withdrawal deadline
of Dec. 31, 2011, for American forces. It also says U.S. troops must
leave cities and villages by July 2009 for more distant bases.
It is
not clear that all 150,000 American troops will be gone in three years.
"There is a provision for an extension by agreement of both sides," a
senior U.S. official said this week, speaking on the condition of
anonymity. The Iraqis could decide they see a continuing role for U.S.
troops, he said. "They have every right to ask us for such a presence."
The
role of U.S. troops in Iraqi cities after July may also be greater than
the agreement implies. The details of the troops' activities would be
worked out in negotiations between the Iraqi and American military, the
senior official said. The above is from Mary Beth Sheridan's " Maliki Defends U.S.-Iraq Deal To Public, Criticizes Opposition" ( Washington Post) and she's addressing the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Song break! I get the news I need on the weather report
I can gather all the news I need on the weather report
Hey, I've got nothing to do today but smile
Doh-n-doh-doh-n-doh-n-doh-doh and here I am,
The only living journalist in the Emerald CitySheridan's
the high point and we'll move to others reporting on the speech Nouri
al-Maliki gave on TV yesterday -- no one notes that the US Embassy in
Baghdad 'assisted' with the writing of that speech, how very strange. Reuters quotes
this bit: "Truly, they (critics) want these foreign forces to stay in
Iraq because their presence on Iraqi soil has become for them,
consciously or unconsciously, a political manoeuvre." We'll go
to Tina Susman and focus on her take regarding politics on the ground
since she's never reported accurately on the treaty itself. From " Iraq's Maliki defends security pact" ( Los Angeles Times): It
is doubtful the pact's opponents could vote it down in parliament.
Maliki's Shiite bloc and Kurdish parties, which back it, hold more than
half the legislative seats. But Vice President Tariq Hashimi, a member
of the Sunni bloc, is part of the three-man Presidency Council that
must sign the bill into law if it passes, and he could veto the measure.
Even
without a veto, trying to enforce the law without broad-based support,
particularly from Sunni lawmakers, could intensify Iraq's political
unrest. And Maliki risks a backlash against his bloc in long-awaited
provincial elections, which his Cabinet on Tuesday set for Jan. 31.
In
his brief address to his nation, Maliki appealed for understanding of
his decision after months of negotiations to sign off on the deal,
which requires all American troops to leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.
Combat troops are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, towns and village and
move to distant bases by the end of next June.
"I will tell you,
frankly, that we have some reservations over the agreement," he said.
"At the same time, we see it as a solid introduction to restoring
Iraq's sovereignty within three years."
Maliki described the pact as
better than extending the U.N. mandate. "Our difficult option was to
proceed with negotiations with the United States," Maliki said.For
those surprised by the "harsh" treatment Susman's received here, I'm
not in the mood for liars about the treaty. We're avoiding one outlet
except for bare minimum in the snapshot today due to their egregious
lying today. Susman got included, the other didn't. First of all, there
is support for renewing the UN mandate in Iraq. Obviously that's why
al-Maliki won't do it. Remember, when he's not supposed to renew it, he
does (and circumvents the Parliament and the Constitution). al-Maliki
was attempting to sell the treaty and lying through his teeth
repeatedly. Campbell Robertson's " Iraqi Premier Defends Security Accord" ( New York Times)
In
a culture deeply imbued with conspiracy, Mr. Maliki repeatedly vowed
that there were no secret side agreements to the pact, the text of
which was published in local newspapers on Tuesday.
Supporters of
the agreement, including most Shiite and Kurdish legislators, are in a
delicate position. While they say that they have the majority needed to
succeed in Parliament, a simple mathematical victory is not enough; all
acknowledge the need for widespread support.
In a statement released
on Tuesday, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite
cleric in Iraq, who has advocated national unity consistently since the
2003 invasion, reiterated his insistence that the agreement draw
support across sectarian lines.
"Any agreement that doesn't win
national consensus," the statement read, "will not be acceptable and
will be a reason for more suffering for Iraqis." Shiite lawmakers said
that the ayatollah told them on Saturday that he found the final draft
of the pact satisfactory, if not ideal, but that his condition of
national consent must be met.No side agreements! Honest! And look, we published the treaty Tuesday! Isn't that enough time for Iraqis to review it! What
a load of crap. Don't get your hopes up re: Sunni objection. Though
Tariq Hashimi may veto it, talk of Sunni opposition in the Parliament
itself isn't being taken seriously by the US State Dept which sees it
as those politicians wanting to be sure to get their "cut of the take".
It's common knowledge in Parliament that some members of the cabinet
were 'rewarded' (bought off) for their support and friends with the
State Dept tell me that Sunni objection in Parliament is nothing but an
effort to ensure that the "palm greasing" continues. For that reason,
we're not going to pay a great deal of attention to what Sunni
lawmakers say this week. The only real Sunni hope for the death of the
treaty is that someone's greed isn't satisfied and they dig in their
heels. AFP reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr supporters (Shi'ites) banged on the tables to
drown out Hassan al-Sined today as he attempted to read the treaty
outloud to the Parliament. The moment was broadcast on TV (which
quickly killed the feed) and Fala Shanshal has stated that guards of
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari beat up MP Ahmed al-Masaudi. The treaty
is scheduled to be read to Parliament on Thursday when they reconvene. We noted Michael Abramowitz' report yesterday that Barack would be shelving the cry for Senate approval (of the treaty). Raed Jarrar (Raed in the Middle) details
how the transition site set up by Barack has already altered the
position on Senate approval. Let's wait and see how long before such
alleged champions of the Constitution Matty Rothschild and Katty
van-van Heuvel speak out. (Chances are they'll both remain impotent and
silent. Remember, the Constitution only matters when Democrats aren't
in control with their kind.) [And, yes, Raed's post does back up
Michael's reporting. And click here to go Raed's site
for the translation of the treaty -- that will allow you to avoid a
lying outlet which also offers a translation today. Song quoted is Paul
Simon's "Only Living Boy in NYC," recorded by Simon & Garfunkel for
Bridge Over Troubled Water.] The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington post mary beth sheridanmichael abramowitzthe new york timescampbell robertsonthe los angeles times
tina susman raed jarrar
Posted at 06:58 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty dance
continues, Iraq corruption continues and look who is firing the auditors, and
more.
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.
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?
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.
|
Posted at 02:52 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Treaty, corruption and Gulf War Syndrome officially exists
Representative
Ike Skelton of Missouri, a Democrat who is chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, warned that the agreement could subject American
soldiers to Iraqi prosecution and complained that parts of the
agreement would be left for joint committees to resolve in the future.That,
Mr. Skelton, said, could set the stage for future disputes between
Iraq's increasingly assertive government and Aemrican diplomats and
commanders."I do not
believe it was wise to push off major decision about the legal
protections U.S. troops would have in such cases or the crimes for
which they could be charged," Mr. Skelton said. "I am also troubled by
vague language in the agreement that will likely cause
misunderstandings and conflict between the U.S. and Iraq in the future."The above is from Campbell Robertson and Steven Lee Myers' " Iraqis and American Critics Of Security Pact Speak Up" in this morning's New York Times and here's the statement from Skelton on that: For immediate release:November 17, 2008 Contact:Loren Dealy (HASC) 202-225-2539 Skelton Cautious on U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces AgreementOversight of SOFA's Implementation is Critical, Says Skelton
Washington, DC – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton
(D-MO) released the following statement on the U.S.- Iraq Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA), which has been approved by the Iraqi Cabinet
and will be sent to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification: "The
signing of the Status of Forces Agreement by Ambassador Crocker and
Foreign Minister Zebari brings to a close the difficult and protracted
negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq. Our negotiators have worked
long hours over the last year to reach this agreement. The agreement
contains some positive aspects. I am pleased that our troops will have
the legal authority they need after January 1, and I am glad that the
Administration has finally recognized the wisdom of setting deadlines
for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. "However,
I am deeply troubled by the sections of the agreement that could result
in U.S. troops facing prosecution in Iraqi courts. For example, I do
not believe it was wise to push off major decisions about the legal
protections U.S. troops would have in such cases or the crimes for
which they could be charged. I am also troubled by vague language in
the agreement that will likely cause misunderstandings and conflict
between the U.S. and Iraq in the future. Should the Iraqi Council of
Representatives pass the agreement, the House Armed Services Committee
will closely monitor the agreement's implementation to ensure the
protection of our men and women in uniform who have served and who
continue to sacrifice on our behalf in Iraq."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 Times also features James Glanz and Riyadh Mohammed's " Premier Of Iraq Is Quietly Firing Fraud Monitors"
on the front page (and it continues inside on A9) which covers
al-Maliki's attempts to derail accountability and his efforts to
promote corruption. A Congressional hearing is referred to by the
authors. I believe that's the hearing held by the Democratic Policy
Committee. It took place September 22nd and was covered in the Sept. 23rd snapshot and, from that, we'll note the chair's opening statement: 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.The article provides
specifics (including names) of inspectors who were run off and Stuart
Bowen speaks on the record (the only US government official who does)
and we'll note this section of the article: 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 on 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. Mr. Rathi's backers considered the charges to be trumped-up.
Ultimately,
Mr. Rathi was forced out and fled Iraq in the summer of 2007, saying he
had received numerous threats to his life. He was recently granted
asylum in the United States, said Chris King, a former United States
Embassy official who was a senior adviser to the integrity commission.
Mr.
King said there had been continual political interference in Mr.
Rathi's investigations. When the commission or an inspector general
built a case against an official, Mr. King said, frequently "that
member of the Iraqi government would then go lobby the American
ambassador and the prime minister."
The prime minister eventually
replaced Mr. Rathi with Judge Rahim al-Ogaili. Mr. Muhsin, Mr. Maliki's
anticorruption coordinator, said the judge was one of three
cabinet-level officials serving on the committee that had recommended
dismissing the inspectors general.Also on corruption, Matt Kelley's " Banned firms got new U.S. contracts in Iraq"
(USA Today) reveals that government suspensions (for bribery) really
don't mean anything and companies can just continue to bid despite
slaps on the wrists: 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.The
new, one-year contract allowed Lee Dynamics to continue operating
warehouses for the Iraqi security forces. Army Maj. Gloria Davis, who
was involved in awarding the company's initial contract in 2005, killed
herself in December 2006 after telling investigators that she took
$225,000 in bribes from company founder George Lee, federal court
records show. Another Army officer, Lt. Col. Levonda Selph, pleaded
guilty last year to taking $9,000 in bribes.David Goldstein's " Gulf War syndrome a real illness, panel concludes" ( McClatchy Newspapers) notes the findings of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illness: The
report compared the foot-dragging and denials to the treatment of
earlier troops who claimed that they'd been dangerously exposed to
Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides in Vietnam and radiation during
World War II.Finally, Zach notes Steve Conn's " Where is Nader Country 2008?" ( CounterPunch) on independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader: With
his typical Lou Gherig approach to civic engagement, Ralph Nader moved
relentlessly through the fifty states, dragging along a new legion of
twenty-something’s, who could barely keep up with his seven decades’
sprint, full of righteous indignation and a commitment to win votes for
a progressive program ignored by the major party candidates. Boot camp
for another generation of citizen activists was nearly over when I flew
down to the 2008 Georgetown headquarters to check out his new crew,
take their political temperatures and feel their pain. Sure enough,
they had the look of combat veterans. I could only imagine what they
had expected when invited on to the team and how bright and shiny they
were then.. The grind of a Presidential campaign, weathering the
attacks from armchair liberals who expect to be spoon fed progress
without effort and Nader’s lead by example style had all done their
jobs. Where else could these young adults experience this test of fire
and a consistent demand that they use their own talents and initiative
to make up for scant resources, while enduring consistent abuse by
major party sycophants? The graduating classes of the 2000 and 2004
Presidential campaigns were already out there somewhere raising hell on
other issues and other campaigns. Each campaign leaves this enduring
residual legacy of new people who finally understand what Nader means
when he challenges his audiences to act on their rights and duties as
Public Citizens.The staff
was battle-hardened from an experience rare for their time and
circumstance in America. No fire hoses in Birmingham had quickened
their maturation Each drew on talents and strengths which while newly
discovered by them, had been anticipated by Nader when he brought them
on. Any organization could use Ralph Nader to vet its new hires. So
could President-elect Obama.The
2008 Ralph Nader campaign showed its verve in production of its video,
photo art and web postings, all the work of the class of 2008. Funny
and serious stuff. Now the graduates were ready to try their newly
discovered strengths and talents to other places and take on other
issues- once they got some rest. Nader, of course, was ready to plunge
back into his normal grind. Plans were discussed among alumni to work
within home Congressional districts.People
who think they matter are angry at Nader now as others were at Martin
Luther King when he broadened his agenda to matters of the war and the
inequities of economic class. The attacks on Nader are always personal.
He has a personality defect that makes him speaking out instead of
going with the flow, his critics content. Critics never complain
explicitly that he is raising issues excised from the campaign debate
of that moment by corporate funders and party operatives, pre-screened,
you might say. That he is off script. That would be too honest.
Progressives from the old days who broke with the 2000 and 2004
campaigns have only admitted privately in later years that their
patrons demanded these public breaks with Ralph Nader and they meekly
complied, throwing Nader under the bus as Obama did his pastor. Again,
they never say that Nader campaign is bringing up issues not to be
talked about except in smaller, liberal circles in nostalgic moments.
While Nader demands, like clockwork, a repeal of the Taft -Hartley Act
of 1947 in every Presidential run, union membership is in single digits
and union demands for card checks as an organizing tool are all that’s
left in labor’s collective memory of an organized labor movement before
Taft-Hartley. But some of the graduates from the 2000 campaign are
ensconced in the labor movement and have memories longer than their
ages. So their time will come to press for more. Others from the 2000
and 2004 campaigns worked for Obama and the Greens or now focus on
issue advocacy. They work on single payer health care or variants of
the Equal Rights Amendment, the sleeping giant. Alumni are everywhere
with their Nader campaign experience not always listed on their
resumes, but imprinted indelibly on their psyches.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timescampbell robertson david goldstein steven lee myers matt kelley steve conn
Posted at 06:42 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The treaty and is Barack breaking his word again?
So many lies in print, so little time to correct. First we'll note this bit of truth: The
concessions included establishing deadlines for withdrawing combat
forces from Iraqi cities by next June and from the country by the end
of 2011, though officials said the text of the agreement included
language that made those dates less rigid deadlines.That's from Campbell Robertson and Steven Lee Myers' " Iraqi and American Critics of Security Pact Speak Up" (A9, New York Times)
and is apparently supposed to suffice for a correction to the record?
(See Robertson and Stephen Farrell's report yesterday -- discussed here). Though the two mention Bill Delahunt's hearing they neglect to note what he has said. We noted the press release in yesterday's snapshot, let's note it in full: For Immediate Release:
November 14, 2008
Further Information:
Mark Forest - 202-225-3111/774-487-2534
DELAHUNT HEARING TO REVIEW STATUS OF U.S.-IRAQ SECURITY AGREEMENT
Experts Suggest That Agreement May Tie Hands Of Obama Administration
WASHINGTON, DC -- 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 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.
At
the end of October, Delahunt joined with Congresswoman 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 sole
instrument providing U.S. troops with the legal authorization to engage
in combat operations in Iraq.
To read the letter, please click here.
The
subcommittee will hear from a panel of experts that will also discuss
the plans and prospects of a temporary extension of the mandate as well
as offer their analysis on how a rushed agreement will affect the next
President.
WHO: Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
WHERE: Room 2175 of the Rayburn House Office Building:
WHEN: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.
SUBJECT: Renewing the United Nations Mandate for Iraq: Plans and Prospects
WITNESSES:
Oona A. Hathaway, Esq.
Professor of Law
Berkeley Law
University of California Berkeley
Mr. Raed Jarrar
Iraq Consultant
Middle East Peace Building Program
American Friends Service Committee
Michael J. Matheson, Esq.
Visiting Research Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
Issam Michael Saliba, Esq.
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
Middle East and North Africa
Law Library of Congress"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." Key
passage from above. 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. Delahunt has made his position
very clear on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement
and you can check out the column he pennded with US House Rep Rosa
DeLauro July 8th's " The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" ( Washington Post). We'll come back to the Times (most likely), let's head over to the Washington Post. Michael Abramowitz does a hideous job and critiquing " Bush Reversal on Iraq Deadline Gives Obama Breathing Room"
could take several book volumes. Let's underscore he doesn't now what
he's talking about when he's writing of (don't call it reporting!) the
treaty and instead move to this appalling tidbit: The
agreement signed yesterday by U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Iraqi
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari needs approval by the Iraqi parliament.
And the Obama transition team is signaling that it wants Congress to
review the pact, though not necessarily approve it."President-elect
Obama believes it is critical that a status-of-forces agreement that
ensures sufficient protections for our men and women in uniform is
reached before the end of the year. We look forward to reviewing the
final text of the agreement," said Brooke Anderson, a policy adviser
and spokeswoman on national security. Yes, Michael
forgets that the presidency council has to sign off as well -- he
forgets a great deal and it's a bad article. But what about the garbage
above? Barack doesn't believe the treaty needs US Congressional
approval? If Michael's correct, that would be a huge, HUGE, shift.
Let's scoot over to the Barack Obama campaign site and zoom in on one
section of " 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.Must be
subject to Congressional approval. Suddenly Congressional approval
doesn't matter? Does Michael have his facts right on that aspect? If he
does, if, then that's a huge shift and Barack is just as bad as the
current Bully Boy so forget rule of law or respect for the Congress and
mark it on the calendars that it took place over a month before Barack
was sworn in. Not only would it be a huge shift from the campaign, it would be a huge shift from the position since the election. Change.gov is 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.So which is it?
(Friends in the transition team tell me this morning that they have not
been informed of an change in position re: the treaty.) Delahunt's
office again: "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." And that's this week's hearing and it takes tomorrow. Why is Tina Susman continuing to play the fool in print? It's obviously the position of her paper's editorial board. The editorial board ridiculously maintains:
"Over the weekend, the Iraqi Cabinet approved a plan hammered out by
the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and U.S. officials to
restrict U.S. combat operations starting Jan. 1, pull American troops
out of cities by June and withdraw from the country entirely by the end
of 2011." I would really hate to think that LAT was so desperate to
continue the illegal war (without the treaty or an extension of the
mandate, US troops would HAVE to return home, Joe Biden noted that
himself back in April, in an open Senate hearing he chaired) that
they'll lie YET AGAIN to the American people just to prolong the
illegal war. Megan notes 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.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington postmichael abramowitzthe new york timescampbell robertsonsteven lee myersthe los angeles times
tina susman tom burghardt
Posted at 06:40 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, November 17, 2008
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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. |
Posted at 02:53 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
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. iraqthe washington postmary beth sheridan ernesto londono npr weekend edition corey flintoff mickey z chris hedges
Posted at 06:59 am by thecommonills
Permalink
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 penkeththe washington postmary beth sheridanthe new york timescampbell robertson stephen farrellthe los angeles times
tina susman brendan trembath peter cave amsteve conn
Posted at 06:57 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present"
Posted at 09:25 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
hussein kadhim
riyadh
mohammed
greg
mitchell
gina chon
the wall street journal
