Jessie is a friend,
Yeah I know hes been a good friend of mine
But lately somethings changed
It ain't hard to define
Jessies got himself a girl
And I want to make her mine . . .

Some of you will already recognize the Rick Springfield written and performed number one hit "Jessie's Girl." It pertains to this entry. We're talking about the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement that the White House wishes to put in place with their client state regime in Baghdad. It is a treaty, it is not a SOFA.

People in the press are going goo-goo-gaa-gaa like overgrown infants (some actually are overgrown infants) over how there will be withdrawal in 2011! The contract is not about 2011. As we pointed out Sunday and Monday, the contract is about 2009. December 31st of this year, the UN mandate authorizing the occupation ends. It is either renewed or else there needs to be some form of agreement worked out by individual countries with the puppet government in Baghdad.

The treaty exists to extend the occupation of Iraq. It does not exist for some noble, high-minded reason. But doesn't the press pretend otherwise? The same way they did when they sold the illegal war and pretended it was about something high-minded, about helping the Iraqi people or about WMDs or something really important!

It wasn't and neither is the treaty. Idiots in the press have pimped it hard -- far too many editorial boards to name in full (but best in show goes for the dog the Los Angeles Times offered up). Some are idiots, some are lying.

The treaty only officially runs one year. It is not a three year treaty unless both sides decide it will be. (It actually could be forced/played as a three-year treaty on Barack's administration by the puppet government but I don't think they have that skill or talent. I could be wrong and often am. But the current administration shares my belief or else they wouldn't keep writing al-Maliki's speeches for him, now would they?)

Rick Springfield. Yes, there is a way to relate the two. The US-Iraq treaty is a one year treaty with two pick-up options. They may or may not be picked up. The treaty is for 2009.

Rick Springfield was a recording artist back in the seventies. Many years later, he recorded what would become Working Class Dog (the highly talented Keith Olson worked on that project). Before it was released, he ended up on General Hospital playing Dr. Noah Drake. While playing the character, "Jessie's Girl" came out and was a huge hit. "I've Done Everything For You" would follow. (The best vocal was "Carried Away" for any Springfield fans out there.) As the follow up was being worked on, a friend at RCA was telling me the big rollout they had planned, the tour, the promotion and I asked, "Well how's he going to get time off for that?" He signed a one-year contract.

Well, yeah, but it's not that simple and I explained it. Did it register? Apparently not. Months later, the same friend's calling me as the tour dates are getting closer and I again ask what about the contract fpr GH? It's not an issue, I'm told. It's not an issue and TV Guide just did an article on Rick and they repeated he was leaving the show so it's true.

Excuse the ___ out of me? Since when does anyone in the entertainment industry ever believe that the reporters do their own work? TV Guide printed what RCA and Springfield told them. They certainly didn't talk to ABC. But fine, whatever, you can't tell some people anything.

But, uh-oh, Rick Springfield's gearing up to leave the daytime drama when he's informed (by ABC) he's not leaving.

He had a one-year contract, yes. With an option for a renewal. And Rick wrongly thought the option was his option. No, it doesn't work that way and it never did. ABC would never sign any actor and give them an option that would allow the actor to say "I think I will do another year." They'd never be able to let go half the losers they've hired. The option was on ABC's side, ABC could exercise it or not. And the network would do so if the performer was playing a popular character. Noah was a popular character.

Rick Springfield did not end up leaving General Hospital that year. ABC exercised the option and he continued to work on the series. He had to bust his ass on the weekends (which often started Thursday night) to try to the scheduled tour as best as possible (many dates were rescheduled since he couldn't perform mid-week). It was a headache for him, it was a headache for RCA.

Rick singed a one-year contract. It had an option. ABC picked up the option.

The treaty being passed off as a SOFA is a one-year contract with two pick-up options. If neither side elects to drop out in 2010 ro 2011, options could turn it into a three year contract. But it's really just a one-year contract. So all this talk of what happens in 2011? It's nonsense.
Imagine Springfield had flopped as Noah and Working Class Dog hadn't taken off. If he'd gone around thinking he had a two-year contract for General Hospital, he would have been very shocked if the soap had dropped him when the one-year contract ran out.

The treaty masquerading as a SOFA is a one-year contract. 2010 and 2011 are options. They are not set in stone. When either party can cancel out -- on one year's notice -- you can't point to what MIGHT happen in 2011 as guaranteed by a contract. That's insanity. The contract, if approved, only covers 2009. That's because the one-year notice doesn't allow either party's cancellation to make it end in 2009. (Example: If Barack wanted to cancel it the day he was sworn in as president, January 20, 2009, and immediately gave notice, the contract would still run until January 20, 2010.) Focusing on what might happen if both parties decide to pick up the option for 2010 and 2011 isn't focusing on what the contract, if approved, promises.

The press is counting the chickens before they're hatched and trying to sell the treaty to the American public on things that are not guaranteed.

The same WMD wasn't guaranteed but the illegal war was sold on them. The press needs to deal with the concrete. The concrete of the treaty is, if passed, 2009 is the only year that is a given and even then there are differences between the Arabic version and the White House version (which is probably why the White House refuses to release it to the American people).

Want to make a difference? Kendrick notes this from American Freedom Campaign:

Does this sound right to you?
Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another.
Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes.
Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military - and even give foreign nations control over our troops.
Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking on the following link:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26268
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action.
Thank you.
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

Rebecca's noted this and also commented so be sure to check out her post. And just to be clear, this entry is not to mak fun of Rick Springfield. I barely knew him but he was a nice person. He also was talented and if he hadn't worn himself out doing the soap and national tours (and existing on Vitamin B shots), his string of hits might have gone longer. I have no ill will towards Rick and am not including him in this entry to have a ha-ha at him. He had an agent, for example, and the agent's job was to explain to him the contract he signed. He had an attorney (ditto). RCA didn't understand acting contracts and that was their bad (including my friend who should have immediately picked up the phone and called RCA's legal dept which would have grapsed what Rick has signed). And it may have been a two-year contract with an option (for ABC) and not a one-year. That was a long, long time ago and my only involvement is documented above (warning my friend -- who wouldn't listen and just knew everything -- that the ABC contract's option was in the network's favor, not Rick's).

This was the issue we've talked about repeatedly re: the contract. A 'three-year' contract that allows either party to cancel out the second or third year is not a three year contract. It is a one-year contract with two pick-up options.

That was the point in the snapshot today: From American Friends Service Committee's translation of the Arabic version (which, remember, is different than the English version that the White House refuses to publicly release -- and this morning the State Dept's Sean McCormick referred questions of its release to the American people back to the White House, FYI):

Article Thirty
Contract Validity
1 - This agreement is valid for three years unless it is terminated earlier by either parties in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article.
[. . .]
3 - Cancellation of this agreement requires a written notice provided one year in advance.

That third section, does no one understand contract law? What you have is a one-year agreement with two options for renewal (it's automatically renewed if no one cancels). It's a one-year contract. Were a performer to sign it, he or she would be signing a one year contract with two pick-up options. This isn't a three-year contract at all. And since either side can cancel it at any point with only a year's heads up, what it says will happen in 2011 really doesn't matter. All that really matters is what it says for 2009 because that's the only period that both sides are bound to. This isn't some deep, obscure psuedo-science. It's basic contract law. It is a one-year contract covering only 2009. After 2009, it can be renewed for 2010 just by not announcing an intent to depart from the contract and, if it is renewed, it can run through 2011 in the same manner. But this is not a three-year contract.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4197. Tonight? 4201. That's incorrect. The death noted in the snapshot today (announced by MNF) is not included in the tally. So it's actually at least 4202 currently. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,288,426 as the number of Iraqis killed isnce the start of the illegal war, up from 1,284,105.


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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
rick springfield
american freedom campaign
sex and politics and screeds and attitude

Need to laugh at the pathetic? Check out Paul Richter's "Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet" in this morning's Los Angeles Times. Laugh at the pathetic and stupid.

I like Iraq Veterans Against the War but an IVAW contingent already embarrassed themselves publicly in Denver. They staged a protest at the Democratic Party convention. They were getting press attention inside the convention because -- as the press gas bagged -- wasn't Barack the alleged 'anti-war' candidate and here was IVAW protesting him. Phones were buzzing, it was going to be the big story. And Team Obama was being asked to comment. So Team Obama sent Tall Tales from Texas out to the protest to make a lot of meaningless remarks that sounded like promises but were nothing more than standard 'rap session' b.s. ("I know where you're coming from," said Barnes.) They bought into that crap hook, line and sinker. And gave interviews where they were excited about Barack (the War Hawk!) and he was going to do this or that and maybe they'd be onstage tonight during his big speech and . . . . It was all so thrilling people might pee their pants!

Reality check, they were punked and everyone knew it right away (including the press -- not always notorious for grasping reality immediately) except IVAW.

They stopped their protest and there was no story (certainly nothing that would embarrass Barack). Barack turned them into props for the 2008 election.

IVAW is an actual group against the illegal war. (If they were also as strongly against the Afghanistan War then they never would have been punked by Barack because his position on Afghanistan cannot be justified.) Win Without War is not an anti-war group. It is not a peace group. It's a p.r. group for electing Democrats. Tom Hayden has called them out before (usually gingerly but not always). So we're not even interested in their garbage. "Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy" is quoted and I've nothing to say of Sam but IPA is not a group against the war. It's Norman Solomon's group and he's made very clear that ending the illegal war takes the back seat to electing Democrats. IPA does not and has not organize marches or do anything. It's a think-tank/p.r. group. We'll note this section:

Kevin Martin, executive director of the group Peace Action, said that although Obama had campaigned as an agent of change, the president-elect is "a fairly centrist guy" who appears to be choosing from the Democratic foreign policy establishment -- "and nobody from outside it."
"So, in the short term, we're going to be disappointed," he said. "They may turn out to be all pro-war, or at least people who were pro-war in the beginning."
Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama's choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory.

Oh listen to the big babies, all of them in the article. Whine, whine, whine. Can someone change their diapers? How very cute that they all are so willing to be used to bash the woman -- the only woman thus far -- who might be in the cabinet. Hillary Clinton was the incoming senator from New York. If their words -- any of their words -- meant a damn thing, they might be calling out Tom Daschle who repeatedly failed in his job. He was Senate Majority Leader when the 2002 vote took place and he supported the authorization and he forced and cajoled others into going along with it via threats and intimidation. He was also Senate Majority Leader when the Patriot Act passed and he is the feeble minded, feckless ____ who refused to force a real investigation into 9-11. The Jersey Girls would have to do that and though he did finally help them somewhat with that, he did so as Minority Leader because he waited so damn long he was no longer the Majority Leader (2002 mid-term elections that November meant he lost his Majority Leader status).

These so-called 'anti-war' groups (many of which aren't) better start asking themselves why they repeatedly are used to go after one woman (they were used the same way during the Democratic Party primary)? In the real world, Hillary Clinton was not Senate Majority Leader during the 2002 authorization vote. In the real world, she was responsible for her vote only and couldn't strong arm others into voting for the authorization. Democratic leadership in the Senate in 2002 cannot make the same claim and that certainly includes Tom Daschle but somehow he's a non-issue. It's a non-issue how he ensured the airline industry his wife once oversaw and then lobbied for got a huge bailout (and was not held accountable for grave breaches in policy, procedure and security) as a 'reward' for 9-11. See Mike, Cedric and Wally last night. Tom Daschle is a War Hawk. But by all means, 'peace' activists, play another round of Bash The Bitch. It doesn't accomplish anything (but then, neither do you) but doesn't it make you feel so gosh darn important and welcomed in a society that regularly tears apart women while letting men slide?

Proof's in their silence over Daschle. As for having to "approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory," that's due to your own cowardice and situational ethics that prevented you from calling a War Hawk a War Hawk. And it's still evident by Kelly Dougherty (whom I like) stating for the article, "Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning." When did he do that, Kelly? When promising more war in Afghanistan? It takes a lot of blindness and denial for someone heading an organization calling for an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to make such a statement about Barack. Alleged 'anti-war' activist better get over their fears of how to "approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama's historic victory" because Iraqis are dying every day in the never-ending illegal war and your own little soft-cushy-comfort level really doesn't matter. Either you call out War Hawks, or you don't. And either you call them out equally, or you don't.

We've seen the alleged 'peace' movement is perfectly willing to play Bash The Bitch and "Kill Mommy" as they go after Hillary time and time again. They just lack the fortitude to go after anyone else apparently -- and apparently going after men is really scary to 'activists.' Some movement. The man in control of the Senate when the 2002 authorization vote took place, the man who strong-armed borderline senators into going along, is being brought into Barack's cabinet and all the 'peace' activists can do is whine yet again about Hillary. They really do love beating up on women and they're all too damn scared to take on the real criminals or power and that would now be Barack Obama. Keep hiding in the shadows, kiddies. You'll note that actual anti-war groups like World Can't Wait and A.N.S.W.E.R. aren't included in the article. Apparently if you can't be controlled by Jodie's dimes and purse strings, you're not in the movement in the eyes of the Los Angeles Times? Both groups can and have called out Barack. It's not that difficult, it just takes a minimal amount of maturity.

Brandy notes Chris Hedges' "America's Wars of Self-Destruction" (Information Clearing House):

Obama and those around him embrace the folly of the "war on terror." They may want to shift the emphasis of this war to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but this is a difference in strategy, not policy. By clinging to Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan, the poison will continue in deadly doses. These wars of occupation are doomed to failure. We cannot afford them. The rash of home foreclosures, the mounting job losses, the collapse of banks and the financial services industry, the poverty that is ripping apart the working class, our crumbling infrastructure and the killing of hapless Afghans in wedding parties and Iraqis by our iron fragmentation bombs are neatly interwoven. These events form a perfect circle. The costly forms of death we dispense on one side of the globe are hollowing us out from the inside at home.
The "war on terror" is an absurd war against a tactic. It posits the idea of perpetual, or what is now called "generational," war. It has no discernable end. There is no way to define victory. It is, in metaphysical terms, a war against evil, and evil, as any good seminarian can tell you, will always be with us. The most destructive evils, however, are not those that are externalized. The most destructive are those that are internal. These hidden evils, often defined as virtues, are unleashed by our hubris, self-delusion and ignorance. Evil masquerading as good is evil in its deadliest form.
The decline of American empire began long before the current economic meltdown or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before the first Gulf War or Ronald Reagan. It began when we shifted, in the words of the historian Charles Maier, from an "empire of production" to an "empire of consumption." By the end of the Vietnam War, when the costs of the war ate away at Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and domestic oil production began its steady, inexorable decline, we saw our country transformed from one that primarily produced to one that primarily consumed. We started borrowing to maintain a lifestyle we could no longer afford. We began to use force, especially in the Middle East, to feed our insatiable demand for cheap oil. The years after World War II, when the United States accounted for one-third of world exports and half of the world’s manufacturing, gave way to huge trade imbalances, outsourced jobs, rusting hulks of abandoned factories, stagnant wages and personal and public debts that most of us cannot repay.
The bill is now due. America's most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals, but those who promote the perverted ideology of national security that, as Andrew Bacevich writes, is "our surrogate religion." If we continue to believe that we can expand our wars and go deeper into debt to maintain an unsustainable level of consumption, we will dynamite the foundations of our society.

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


iraq
the los angeles times
paul richter
chris hedges
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it

Passage of the US-Iraq security pact under the terms both countries' leaders have advocated could violate the constitutions of both countries, specialists told a congressional subcommittee yesterday.
[. . .]
Jarrar told the House subcommittee a simple-majority approval of the pact could provoke unrest and violence in Iraq.
"Most of the groups who are opposing it in the parliament, have been saying, 'If you wanted to go through some loopholes - not send it to Parliament or pass it through a simple majority - we will quit this political process as a whole, and we will go back to armed resistance,' " he said.
Delahunt said US and Iraqi officials should begin working on a six-month to one-year extension of the UN mandate instead of pushing the security agreement through the Iraqi parliament before it recesses next week.

The above is from Jenny Paul's "US-Iraq security pact may be in violation, Congress is told" (Boston Globe) and what other newspaper filed on this? That's an important hearing and only the Boston Globe is going to file?

Paul's got a fairly in-depth article and we're going with Raed Jarrar for the excerpt because time ran out while dictating yesterday's snapshot leading him to receive less space in it than I intended.

You want to see garbage? Go over to McClatchy and read the crap with Nancy A. Youssef's byline attached. They can't cover the hearing but they can assemble statements made at various press briefings (by the administration)? It's embarrassing and it's pathetic.

The treaty has certainly been praised and endorsed by one editorial board after another so the rules of journalism dictate that a Congressional hearing on the treaty -- especially one that finds it not so wonderful -- gets press play.

Ross Colvin covers it for the wire service Reuters:

Delahunt, who has urged President George W. Bush to renew the U.N. mandate rather than sign a bilateral agreement with Iraq, held the eighth in a series of hearings on the Status of Forces Agreement.
He said the Bush administration had turned down an invitation to attend the open hearing, saying it was a "sensitive time." Experts testifying before his subcommittee were forced to rely on an unofficial English translation of the security deal.
"Even now the National Security Council has requested that we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the public. Now that's incredible -- meantime the Iraqi government has posted this document on its media website," Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, said.
He was referring to the Iraqi government-funded al-Sabah newspaper, whose Arabic version of the deal is also the source of the only known unofficial English translation, by the anti-war American Friends Service Committee.

Yesterday's hearing mattered in many ways. It should have been reported by all major outlets.

One issue raised was how allowing this to go through on the US-end would set a precedent that was very dangerous, it would forever alter what sort of agreements a president could enter into unilaterally. From yesterday's snapshot:

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.

That alone should have been pursued by the press.

We also learned that there are two versions promising two different things. The Iraqis have the Arabic version and the English version differs from it -- although the Iraqis appear unaware of that.

We learned that is pushed through without Congressional approval (via voting for it), it would be illegal domestically.

We learned a great deal -- so much more than the news outlets have bothered to tell in their weeks and weeks of coverage. But we learned that only if we were present at the hearing or read Jenny Paul or Ross Colvin's reports. That's appalling.

The subcommittee had a memo they put out before the hearing and it's in PDF format. A friend on the committee asked if we could note that. I hadn't seen it and it's too long to go into this entry but it is posted here (at this site) in non PDF format so those who don't click on PDF links are able to read it in full. You can find it in PDF format at the ccommittee's website. There is enough information in that memo to result in multiple editorials and reports.

Two outlets report on the treaty from Iraq and the objections yesterday when it was read in Parliament. From Campbell Robertson and Suadad al-Salhy's "Brawl Halts Session of Iraqi Parliament" (New York Times):


As soon as the session began, politicians in opposition to the pact stood up in the hall and volubly argued that the ratification process was unconstitutional because a law governing the passage of international agreements had not been approved. Supporters say such a law is unnecessary because Parliament has already ratified numerous agreements without one.
For the next two hours, the Parliament speaker, Mahmoud Mashhadani, lashed out at the objectors and refused their demands to change the Parliament agenda. He then invited Hassan al-Sneid, a Shiite lawmaker, to begin the second public reading of the agreement, a matter of parliamentary procedure.
As Mr. Sneid began reading, witnesses said, Sadrists and other opponents of the agreement continued to trade shouts with lawmakers who supported it. Then, Ahmed Masu'udi, a Sadrist lawmaker, approached the dais. Mr. Masu'udi said later in an interview that he was simply trying to reach Mr. Mashhadani to persuade him to stop the reading; several other witnesses said Mr. Masu'udi tried to attack Mr. Sneid. The security guards rushed toward Mr. Masu'udi, who said that they grabbed him and struggled to push him away. At that point, witnesses said, the hall was filled with shouting, lawmakers rushed toward the front and the session ended in chaos.
Legislators poured out of the hall and into the cafeteria. There, shouting and accusations continued among the lawmakers, quickly attracting a company of security guards, who surrounded the cafeteria and tried to keep away the journalists and other onlookers who had gathered.

As Raed Jarrar noted in the hearing yesterday, the Parliament starts a month long break in ten days. This is from Saif Rasheed and Tina Susman's "Iraqi session on U.S. pact ends in shouting match" (Los Angeles Times):

Lawmakers from three other political blocs joined the Sadr loyalists in condemning what they called bullying by bodyguards inside parliament, and they pledged to boycott further sessions.
The groups don't have enough combined seats to prevent a quorum in the 275-seat legislature, assuming enough lawmakers showed up, but their action will deny Prime Minister Nouri Maliki the broad-based backing he needs to avoid deepening rifts that have hobbled efforts at reconciliation.
Maliki also faces provincial and national elections next year and cannot afford to be seen as backing a plan overly favorable to the Americans, as foes have described it.

The treaty's been sold by the same outlets that sold the illegal war. It would be great if our so-called 'independent' press could take a moment or two to actually cover something that matters. (Hint, fan club bulletins of Barack do not matter.)

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


iraq
jenny paul
the boston globe
the new york times
campbell robertson
the los angeles times
tina susman

This is a memo regarding the treaty masquerading as the SOFA. The Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs compiled it and it's available online in PDF format here.

Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights, and Oversight
Memorandum
November 18, 2008
TO: Members, Committee on Foreign Affairs
FROM: Bill Delahunt, Chairman
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights, and Oversight
SUBJECT: Hearing on “Renewing the United Nations Mandate for Iraq:
Plans and Prospects”
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in 2175
Rayburn House Office Building
This is the eighth in a series of hearings by the Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight on various
aspects of security arrangements and combat authority for U.S. forces in Iraq
-- ranging from the existing UN Mandate to the draft bilateral agreement
now under consideration by the Iraqi Parliament. This memorandum
provides a timeline for those hearings and other Subcommittee and
administration actions, and addresses a number of key questions:
 If the bilateral security agreement is not consummated by the
current Mandate’s expiration date of December 31, 2008, is it
politically possible for Iraq to seek and receive a renewal of
the UN Mandate -- which currently provides both domestic
and international combat authority and legal immunities to
U.S. forces?
 Can the bilateral agreement be legally consummated without
the approval of the U.S. Congress?
 What level of approval by the Iraqi Parliament (two-thirds or
one-half) is required for the bilateral agreement to be legally
consummated?
2
Timeline of Administration and Subcommittee Action
November 26, 2007 -- President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki sign a
“Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship,” pledging to
negotiate by July 2008 a series of bilateral commitments that would replace
the UN Mandate when it expires at the end of 2008, as well as terminate
other obligations placed on Iraq by the UN Security Council since 1990.
This document envisions a wide-ranging set of commitments covering
political, economic, and security spheres. Key excerpts from the Declaration
imply a U.S. commitment to engage in combat on behalf of the Iraqi
Government against foreign and internal enemies, as well as against a coup.
December 5, 2007 – Chairman Delahunt sends a letter to the administration
asking its position on the claim by a majority of Iraqi Members of
Parliament that they must approve any extension of the UN Mandate.
December 18, 2007 -- UN Security Council approves one-year renewal of
the Mandate for Multinational Forces in Iraq, to expire on December 31,
2008.
December 19, 2007 -- Subcommittee hearing titled “The Extension of the
United Nations Mandate for Iraq: Is the Iraqi Parliament Being Ignored?”
Testimony at this first hearing indicates that the renewal of the UN Mandate
was requested by Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Iraqi executive branch
over the opposition of a majority of the Iraqi Council of Representatives, or
parliament. The parliamentarians signed a letter and passed legislation
stating that the Iraqi Constitution required parliamentary approval of
“international treaties and agreements” of this nature, and calling for the
inclusion of a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Testimony also
demonstrates that the Maliki Government repeatedly stated its intention to
seek parliamentary approval of the request for an extension of the UN
Mandate, but failed to do so.
January 10, 2008 -- State Department responds in writing to the Chairman’s
letter of December 5, stating that it considers the Iraqi request for an
extension valid without the approval of Parliament.
January 23, 2008 -- Subcommittee hearing held jointly with the
Subcommittee the Middle East and South Asia, and titled: “The Proposed
U.S. Security Commitment to Iraq: What Will Be in it and Should it Be a
Treaty?” Testimony at this second hearing reveals broad agreement among
the witnesses that any agreement that included commitments to defend the
Government of Iraq against internal and external enemies, as promised in the
3
November 26 Declaration of Principles, would require the approval of both
Houses as a congressional-executive agreement, or ratification by the Senate
as a treaty. In addition, testimony indicates that the Administration has not
yet taken a series of consultative steps with Congress that are required by
both law and regulation at the beginning of any “significant” international
negotiation.
February 8, 2008 -- Subcommittee hearing titled: “The November 26
Declaration of Principles: Implications for UN Resolutions on Iraq for
Congressional Oversight.” Testimony was taken from public witnesses
with expertise on U.S. law and UN procedures.
February 8, 2008 -- Chairman Delahunt sends a letter to President Bush
asking for the administration’s interpretation of the source of its legal
authority to engage in combat in Iraq.
February 28, 2008 -- Subcommittee hearing titled: “Status of Forces
Agreements and UN Mandates: What Authorities and Protections Do They
Provide to U.S. Personnel?” Testimony was taken from Congressional
Research Service lawyers, including SOFA expert Chuck Mason, who
reviewed existing SOFAs and found none that included “authority to fight.”
March 4, 2008 -- Subcommittee hearing held jointly with the Subcommittee
the Middle East and South Asia, and titled “Declaration and Principles:
Future U.S. Commitments to Iraq.” Testimony was taken from
Ambassador David Satterfield, the State Department’s lead negotiator on the
bilateral agreement.
March 17, 2008 -- State Department responds to the Chairman’s letter of
February 8 with a letter rejecting the previous testimony of public legal
scholars, who had argued that U.S. domestic combat authority would expire
with the UN Mandate.
June 4, 2008 -- Subcommittee briefing titled: The Future of U.S.-Iraqi
Relations: The Perspective of the Iraqi Parliament” This briefing featured
testimony from two Iraqi Members of Parliament, Sheik Khalaf al-Ulayyan
and Professor Nadeem al-Jaberi. They presented a letter signed by members
of Parliament representing a majority of the parliament, which stated that a
two-thirds’ majority would be needed to affirm an international agreement.
July 23, 2008 -- Subcommittee hearing titled: “Possible Extension of the UN
Mandate for Iraq: Options. Testimony is taken from public witnesses on
Iraqi public opinion on various options for continued U.S. involvement. In a
4
briefing after the hearing, current Member of Parliament and former interim
Prime Minister of Iraq Ayad Allawi testifies on his party’s willingness to
accept an extension of the UN Mandate.
October 29, 2008 -- Chairman Delahunt and Representative Rosa DeLauro
send a letter to President Bush asking for immediate attention to laying the
groundwork at the United Nations for a renewal of the UN Mandate.
November 2008 -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators announce concurrence on the
security agreement; the Iraqi cabinet re-opens negotiations with over 100
suggested changes; the administration and Iraqi negotiators agree on a new
document, which is approved by the Iraqi Cabinet on November 16 and
signed by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari and submitted to the Iraqi Parliament on November 17.
First readings are held that day in Parliament of a bill approving the
agreement and a bill establishing the constitutional process for approving
international agreements.
Is a UN Mandate Renewal a Viable Option?
1. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, September 11, 2008, interviewed
by the Saudi newspaper Asharq al-Awsat:
“If such an agreement is not signed -- which is a possibility – the
alternative would be for the United States to go to the Security Council in
agreement with the Iraqi government. We may request that the
Security Council resolution be extended for one year…If an
extension takes place, it will be a routine one. However, if the Iraqi
government asks for amendments and changes on the resolution, I
believe that the United State will use its veto power.”
2. Dr. Omar Abdelsattar Al-Karbuli, Member of Parliament from the
Islamic Party (part of the Iraqi Accord Front), November 17, 2008, from
the website of the Islamic Party:
Al-Karbuli said that "many complications will stand in the way of the
passing of the security agreement with the U.S. in parliament."
Al-Karbuli added, "The Council of Representatives has not passed the
law on treaties and agreements, in addition to lack of clarity on the voting
process and applying the law to the agreement by the parliamentarians."
Al-Karbuli clarified that "The Accord Front opposes the passage of the
5
agreement at this time, and supports working towards extending the
mission of the U.S. forces through a UN mandate. After the mandate
is extended, negotiations on the agreement should be resumed."
Al-Karbuli said that "giving the parliament one week to vote on the
agreement is not enough and does not allow a clear discussion of the
articles of the agreement." He added that he expects "the government
parties to put great effort into getting the agreement passed in the
parliament next week."
3. Current Member of Parliament and former Interim Prime Minister of Iraq
Dr. Ayad Allawi, July 23, 2008, in testimony before the Subcommittee:
“Extension of the UN Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 is an
option, but may be unacceptable in Iraq. A second option is a UN
Security Council resolution, but under Chapter 6. This option and its
ramifications need to be studied carefully because we are concerned
about the protection of Iraqi assets from claims by international creditors.
Either one of these two temporary options would give us more time
to negotiate a more permanent agreement in a transparent,
cooperative manner.”
“It is necessary to consider and present alternative legislation that
promotes the position of Iraq and its national unity. Another concept that
should be considered is proposing legislation that would either renew the
UNSC resolution, even if some minor adjustments were made to it, or
proposing legislation that contains a bundle of three interdependent
decisions:
(a) Signing a strategic agreement with minor adjustments (different
from SOFA) that will be presented along with but separate from
SOFA.
(b) Issuing a joint declaration to discuss SOFA during a year or the
next year.
(c) Extending the UN mandate for another six months or one
year.”
4. Current Member of Parliament and former Interim President of Iraq Dr.
Ayad Allawi, November 14, 2008, in a letter to Chairman Delahunt:
“Therefore we believe for any bilateral agreement to be signed it would
be better to be done after the withdrawal of the American troops, when
6
Iraq is fully qualified and when the government is in a position to
defend the interests of the Iraqi people. We are also concerned about the
expediency and acceleration of signing this agreement, because there has
been very little time that has elapsed since the Declaration of Principles
and until this agreement is to be signed, and I do not believe it is
appropriate, it may not be convenient at this time, for the United States as
it is beginning to change its administration -- and therefore I ask when we
look into this agreement that it be delayed until a more convenient time.”
5. Member of Parliament Dr. Nadim al-Jaberi, June 4, 2008, in testimony
before the Subcommittee:
“Iraqi officials have said they would seek a renewal of the UN mandate if
the pact, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq through
2011, is not passed by parliament by the end of the year.”
-- Associated Press news story, November 14, 2008.
http://www.freep.com/article/20081114/NEWS07/81114052/1009/NE
WS07
Is Congressional Approval Required?
1. This statement by President-elect Barack Obama and Vice-president-elect
Joe Biden was posted on the Obama-Biden website during the campaign:
“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.”
2. This statement appears on President-elect Obama’s transition website:
Obama and Biden believe it is vital that a Status of Forces Agreement
(SOFA) be reached so our troops have the legal protections and
7
immunities they need. Any SOFA should be subject to Congressional
review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home.
3. On August 1, 2008, Senator Biden introduced a bill (S. 3433) with
Senators Chuck Hagel, Robert Casey, George Voinovich, and Jim Webb that
requires congressional approval and urges an extension of the UN Mandate
for Iraq until such approval is obtained:
“Prohibition on Entry Into Force of Certain Agreements- No
agreement containing a security commitment to, or security
arrangement with, the Republic of Iraq, may enter into force
except pursuant to Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of
the United States (relating to the making of treaties) or unless
authorized by a law enacted on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution
(relating to the enactment of laws).”
“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their
Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,” Senator Biden
said in a press release. “The President cannot make such a sweeping
commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval first.”
4. On December 6, 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton introduced a bill (S. 2426)
that has been cosponsored by Senator Obama and 12 other Senators that
requires congressional approval of any security agreement with Iraq
“involving ‘commitments or risks affecting the nation’”:
“Prohibition on Use of Funds To Carry Out Certain Agreements- No
funds may be authorized or appropriated to carry out any
bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving
`commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole', including a
status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by
two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or
authorized by legislation passed by both houses of Congress.”
5. On March 13, 2008, Chairman Delahunt introduced H.R. 5626, which is
cosponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro and 14 other Members of
Congress, which would require congressional approval of any security
agreement with Iraq and urges the Administration to support an Iraqi request
for an extension of the UN Mandate (Ms. DeLauro had previously
introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4959):
8
“No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any
department or agency of the United States may be used--
(1) to establish or maintain any permanent or long-term United States
military base or facility in Iraq; or
(2) to implement any agreement that is consistent with the
security commitments of the United States to Iraq under the
Declaration of Principles, including the security commitments
described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of section 1(2) of this Act,
or any agreement that provides `authority to fight' for United
States Armed Forces engaged in combat operations, other than for
self-defense purposes, unless the agreement is in the form of a treaty
with respect to which the Senate has given its advice and consent to
ratification under Article II of the Constitution of the United States or
the agreement is approved by an Act of Congress enacted after the
date of the enactment of this Act.”
6. On May 22, 2008, an amendment by Representative Barbara Lee to
require congressional approval of any security agreement with Iraq passed
the House by a vote of 234 to 183 (Ms. Lee also introduced a bill with a
similar prohibition, H.R. 6846, on September 9, 2008, which has eight cosponsors):
“No provision of any agreement between the United States and Iraq
described in section 1212 (a)(1)(A)(iv) shall be in force with respect
to the United States unless the agreement--
(1) is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the
Senate (or is intended to take that form in the case of an agreement
under negotiation); or
(2) is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the
date of the enactment of this Act.”
7. On March 4, 2008, constitutional scholar Professor Oona Hathaway (then
of the Yale Law School but now of the Berkeley Law School) testified that
before the Subcommittee that:
“(A)n agreement that would provide authority to engage in military
action in Iraq would exceed the President’s own constitutional
authority and thus must be approved by Congress.”
9
On November 7, 2008, Ms. Hathaway indicated in a memorandum to me
that the proposed agreement is not a traditional, executive branch Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) and would require congressional approval for
two reasons -- its provision of combat authority that only Congress can
provide once the UN Mandate expires, and the involvement of another
country in the approval of U.S. military operations:
“Domestic legal authority to engage in military operations in Iraq
expires on December 31, 2008. The bilateral agreement does not
replace that authority unless it is approved by Congress.”
“The administration has argued that the bilateral agreement with Iraq
may be concluded by the President as a sole executive agreement
because it is simply a status of forces agreement (SOFA), more than a
hundred of which have been concluded as sole executive agreements.
That is, however, not correct. Although this agreement has been
called a SOFA, it includes provisions that have never been a part of
any prior SOFA of which I am aware—most notably, provisions
granting the authority for U.S. troops to engage in military operations,
the grant of power over military operations to a joint U.S.-Iraq
Committee, and a specification of timetables for military operations.
These non-traditional extra-SOFA commitments go beyond the
President’s own constitutional authority and must be approved by
Congress.”
8. On February 20, 2008, legal specialist Chuck Mason of the Congressional
Research Service concluded from his review of scores of Status of Forces
Agreements (SOFAs) that the proposed agreement would be unique among
SOFAs if it provided combat authority:
“Authority to Fight: SOFAs do not generally authorize specific
military operations by U.S. forces….While SOFAs do not generally
provide authority to fight, the inherent right of self-defense is not
impacted or diminished either.”
Is Two-thirds or One-half the Standard for Approval by the Iraqi
Parliament?
1. Article 61 of the Iraqi Constitution states:
“The Council of Representatives specializes in the following:
10
…..Fourth: A law shall regulate the ratification of international
treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority of the members of
the Council of Representatives.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/
content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450_pf.html
2. “The Iraqi constitution determines that the Council of Representatives
must first enact a law to ratify the Law of Treaties and Agreements, and
must vote or pass this law through parliament by a two-thirds majority.
This law will take long time to pass due to the two-thirds requirement, so
it will not be enacted before the end of this year. We are constitutionally
barred from ratifying any agreements without the enactment of this law
and the law has not been enacted so far.
The negotiating team is not authorized to take any decision until they
go back to Mr. Prime Minister. If he approves it, it will be sent to the
Political Council for National Security, and if it is approved by the
Political Council for National Security with two-thirds majority, then
they can send it to the parliament. The parliament must wait until it
enacts the law to ratify international treaties and agreements, then we
can submit the U.S.-Iraqi agreement to the parliament after the
approval of this law.”
-- Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament,
interviewed by the satellite news service al-Arabiya, August 31, 2008.
http://www.alarabiya.net/programs/2008/08/31/55777.html
3. “The decision to accept or reject the agreement will require a long time
for reasons related to the legal proceedings that the agreement must go
through. Ratifying the agreement will require a 2/3 majority vote of
members of parliament.”
-- Khalid Shuwani, Member of Parliament, Legal Committee, October
25, 2008
http://www.annabaa.org/nbanews/72/012.htm
4. “We were also very concerned when this agreement was not going to be
proposed in front of part of the Iraqi parliament, and this goes against the
Iraqi constitution. And you cannot put any agreement into application in
Iraq in accordance with the constitution unless you have majority or
11
2/3rds approval in parliament. Therefore not presenting it to parliament
might be a factor in the agreement failing.”
-- Dr. Nadim al-Jaberi, Member of Parliament, June 11, 2008, in
testimony before the Subcommittee.
5. “We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your
concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi
legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal, in accordance
with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. Furthermore, any
treaty, agreement, or “executive agreement” that is signed between Iraq
and the United States will not be legal and will not enter the stage of
implementation without first being ratified by the Council of
Representatives, in accordance with section four of article 61 of the Iraqi
constitution…”
-- Letter to Chairman Bill Delahunt, signed by parliamentarians
representing a majority of the Iraqi Parliament, May 29, 2008.
6. “Section four of Article 61 stipulates that the Parliament shall enact a law
by a two-thirds majority vote to regulate the approval of international
treaties and agreements. Apparently, no such law has been enacted. The
law regulating the approval of international treaties and agreements is a
procedural one, and does not affect the basic constitutional duty of
Parliament to approve all international treaties and agreements. In the
absence of such a law, each time the Parliament approves an international
treaty or agreement the act of approval becomes itself the procedural law
for that specific treaty or agreement and requires therefore a two-thirds
majority vote.”
-- Issam Michael Saliba, Senior Foreign Law Specialist, Law Library
of Congress, in testimony before the Subcommittee, December 19,
2007.
7. “According to the Iraqi Constitution, it is the job of the Iraqi Council of
Representatives, the Iraqi Parliament, to ratify international treaties. This
requires a two-thirds margin of support. Then the measure goes to the
President to ratify the treaty, although such treaties are considered
ratified after 15 days.”
-- Michael Rubin, PhD, resident scholar, American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research, December 19, 2007, in testimony
before the Subcommittee.


[Disclosure, the above is noted at the request of a friend on the committee.]

committee on foreign affairs

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