An increasingly bold Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has sanctioned politically charged arrests of prominent Sunnis, personally supervised military operations and moved to sideline rivals in recent months, actions that have evoked memories of the country's authoritarian past.
Now the Shiite leader, once considered weak and ineffectual, is on the cusp of greater powers with the likely approval this week of a security agreement with the U.S. that would anoint him as the man who brought an end to the American troop presence in Iraq.

The above is from Ned Parker's "Iraq's Nouri Maliki may gain power with U.S. security agreement" (Los Angeles Times) and it's good that Parker's addressing it but it's also not at all surprising. Dropping back to the April 10th snapshot covering that day's US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations hearing:

Biden noted the "internal threat" aspect being proposed and how these requires the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment." He noted that it requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out." "Just understand my frustration," Biden explained. "We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."

Biden is Joe Biden, the chair of that committee then, the vice president-elect now.

In Iraq, Reuters reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five people injured, another that claimed 13 lives ("female employees of Trade Ministry") and left seven more people injured, a Baghdad "female suicide" bombing that claimed at least 5 lives and left twelve people injured at an "entrance to the heavily-fortified Green Zone" and 1 person shot dead in Kirkuk. The New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Alan Cowell observe:

The timing of the attacks -- which followed a recent increase in violence -- suggested that insurgents wanted to demonstrate that they were still able to disrupt the city and penetrate well-guarded areas even as the government seeks Parliament's approval of the security agreement.
That vote, initially scheduled for Monday, may come this week, and government officials said they were hoping to win final approval on Wednesday. Last Friday, more than 10,000 supporters of the radical anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr gathered in central Baghdad to display opposition to the security accord.
As the government prepares for the vote, Iraqi lawmakers opposed to the deal have seized on a new argument that the accord does not explicitly protect Iraq's vast oil wealth and other assets from seizure to satisfy billions of dollars in legal claims against the former government of Saddam Hussein.
Supporters of the agreement maintain that it will still pass by a significant margin.

Yesterday was a big meet-up in Damascus to discuss Iraq's security with its neighbors and 'interested parties.' Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes:

Security coordination and cooperation conference of Iraq's neighboring countries was opened today 23 November,2008, with the presence of Arab League , United Nations, Security Council, Eight major states, Islamic Organization conference and European Union as well as the neighboring countries of Iraq, Egypt and Bahrain.
General Bassam Abdul Majeed, Syrian Interior Minister, opened the conference by giving a speech welcoming the presence and stated that strengthening of cooperation and security coordination, implementing the bilateral agreements and controlling the joint borders is a joint responsibility for all the participants in the conference. Mr. Labeed Abbawi, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary for Policy Planning and Bilateral Relations, stressed in his speech the improvement of economical, political, security situations in Iraq, pointing out that this improvement have been achieved by the Iraqi government's efforts and the support of neighboring countries, regional and international organizations.
The Heads of participating delegations exchanged views and interventions in the first working session and it will continue until today.

Iran's Press TV notes that along with Syria and Iraq, particpants included "the Arab League, the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and permanent members of the UN Security Council and the Group of Eight". This is from China's Xinhau's "Syria says Iraq's border control is neighbors' joint responsibility:"

Syrian Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majid said here on Sunday that Iraq's border control was a joint responsibility for its neighbors which should boost security cooperation and coordination.
Abdul Majid made the remarks in an opening speech at the third meeting of the Security Cooperation and Coordination Committee for Iraq's Neighboring Countries.
He urged the participants to issue a recommendation that "Iraq will not be used as a launch pad for any acts of aggression against neighboring states under any circumstance," referring to are cent U.S. cross-border raid in Syria which killed eight Syrian civilians.
The Syrian official reiterated his country's condemnation of this "stark violation" of Syrian sovereignty and international laws.

UPI adds:

The Kuwait news agency, KUNA, said Abdulmajid called for the group to issue a formal policy stating, "Iraq is not to be used as a launch pad for any acts of aggression against neighboring states under any circumstance."
The group was formed in 2006 by the interior ministers of Iraq's neighbors in an attempt to assert control over their borders with Iraq and to stop the infiltration of arms and fighters into the country.

Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) notes that Maura Connelly, US Charge d'Affaires (and a woman, despite some recent press releases from the Syrian government), represented the US at the meet-up by "accusing host Syria of sheltering militants attacking Iraq" but "other countries adopted a more conciliatory tone, delegates said."



In addition, a meet-up on Iraqi refugees took place yesterday and Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued "Iraq Participate in Amman Third Meeting of Iraqi Refugees and Displaced" on the meet-up:

Iraqi delegation participated in Amman Third meeting of Iraqi refugees and displaced on Tuesday 20 Nov, 2008. Dr. Mohammed Al Hajj Himoud, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary for Legal Affairs and Multilateral Relations represented Iraq in this meeting, with his accompanying delegation from Human Right Ministry and Education Ministry.
The meeting was attended by representatives of Iraq's neighboring countries, permanent members of Security Council, Eight states group, United Nations, Arab League, Islamic Conference Organization, Red Cross, and Red Crescent Societies. The meeting was headed by Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with Iraq.
The host countries reviewed the developments and achievements that have been achieved since Amman Second Meeting 2008 of hosting countries generally, specifically in fields of health, education, energy, transport, infrastructure and water.
The international organizations reviewed their works and the achievements which have been fulfilled, since Amman meeting 2008 and made a presentation of the steps that are going to take them in the future.
At the end of the session, participants expressed their gratitude to the donor countries, parties, regional concerned countries and UNAMI; also it urged everyone to provide more support to assist the host countries to cover the needs of Iraqis residents.
The participants also expressed their gratitude to the government of Jordan for hosting the host countries's meeting of Iraqis.

Meanwhile another member of the Cult of St. Barack tries to leave their hazy fog (but fails) and this comment to the piece says it all:

So, Heather, with all your foreknowledge, why did you go ahead and vote for Obama? There WERE other choices. Nader/Gonzalez was on most ballots, or you could have written in McKinney/Clemente. Oh, I forgot, all you great thinkers didn’t want to "waste" your vote or else were more afraid of McCain than Obama, although their policies are practically the same, judging from their voting records. I am so sick of people who know better choosing to go along with the conventional wisdom that says third parties do not have a chance (which is true when people fail to vote for them). That outlook is why change never comes, and never will. And now, the rest of us must suffer through buyer's remorse articles like this, articles that tell us nothing new, but apparently help you and other writers deal with your guilty consciences.

That comment was made by HR and Martha e-mailed to note it.

Bonnie reminds Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart" went up yesterday.

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

iraq
ned parker
the los angeles times
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
alan cowell
the world today just nuts

In today's New York Times, James Glanz and Steven Lee Myers play "Let's make fun of Iraqis." "Iraqi Foes of Security Pact Cite Its Failure to Shield Nation's Assets From Suits" starts on A6 and the 'laughs' continue through A10. Oh, those silly Iraqis, Glanz and Myers chortle:

Iraqi lawmakers opposed to the proposed security agreement with the United States have seized on a new argument that has emerged only in recent days: the accord does not explicitly protect Iraq's vast oil wealth and other assets from seizure to satisfy billions of dollars in legal claims against the former government of Saddam Hussein.

Oh, those silly Iraqis! Glanz and Myers forget to tell readers that Iraqi MPs have had a copy of the treaty for less than a week. The two 'reporters' also need to be knocked off their high horses because the Iraqi MPs are doing what they refuse to: Read the document.

How silly of the Iraqis not to just repeat what officials say the treaty says -- you know, what the Times and so much more of the alleged 'free' press has done day after damn day.

The 'reporters' find it 'cute' that MPs are worried about this and all but rolls their eyes in print as they explain for the 'thickheaded' that, of course, Nouri al-Maliki will go to the United Nations to get an extension of that via some form of a mandate.

Mandate. The UN Security Council mandate expires December 31st and it does offer protection for Iraqi assets. And al-Maliki will go back to have that aspect extended but refuses to extend the mandate itself?

Who's the idiot?

It doesn't look like it's the Iraqi MPs, it looks like it's two 'reporters' who are awfully full of themselves and think it's 'educated' and 'sophisticated' to look down on Iraqi MPs who are doing the work that the press long ago should have.

The vote in Parliament is now supposed to take place Wednesday and we'll again note this from the 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 [here]
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

You can read an English translation of the Arabic version via American Friends Service Committee; however, remember that the official English version has not been released and that it differs from the Arabic version.

Jeremy R. Hammond examines the treaty in "U.S. Would Control Profits from Iraqi Oil Exports Under Agreement" (Information Clearing House):

The terms of the agreement effectively allow the U.S. to continue to control billions of dollars of proceeds from the sale of exported Iraqi oil held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It also contains numerous loopholes that could allow the continuing long-term presence of U.S. military forces and would effectively maintain U.S. jurisdiction over crimes committed by American soldiers.
Iraq's cabinet approved the agreement a week ago with 27 members voting in favor, out of 28 ministers who were present, with nine ministers absent. It is now being debated in the Parliament.
Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, Iraq's minister of defense, issued a dire warning that without the agreement and continued presence of U.S. forces, "then what happened in the Gulf of Aden will happen in the Arabian Gulf too. Pirates will start in these ports in a way you can't even imagine."
Governments often use fear tactics to push through controversial legislation. Before the U.S. invasion, members of the Congress were told that if they didn't authorize the President to use military force against Iraq, Saddam Hussein might attack the east coast of the United States with biological weapons from unmanned aerial vehicles, for example. More recently, members of Congress were warned that if they did not pass the highly unpopular bill taking taxpayers' dollars to bail out banking and investment corporations, there would be martial law in America.

Dropping back to yesterday, Lloyd notes Ernesto London's "Kurds in N. Iraq Receive Arms From Bulgaria: 3 Planeloads of Munitions Worry Officials in Baghdad" (Washington Post):

Kurdish officials this fall took delivery of three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria, three U.S. military officials said, an acquisition that occurred outside the weapons procurement procedures of Iraq's central government.
The large quantity of weapons and the timing of the shipment alarmed U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq.
[. . .]
Iraq's interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, said in an interview that central government officials did not authorize the purchase of weapons from Bulgaria. He said such an acquisition would constitute a "violation" of Iraqi law because only the Ministries of Interior and Defense are authorized to import weapons.

And I'll pair that with Andrea Bruce's "As Kurdish North Grows, Some Are Left Out" from today's Washington Post:

Hyder Hassan Aziz, 46, walks the damp streets of Irbil with his hands thrust in his coat pockets and his shoulders tense, close to his ears. His clothes are faded gray, like the overcast early-morning sky, and he looks at the ground when he walks, kicking small stones with every step.
The bakery is a block from the apartment building where Hyder has lived with his family for 12 years. His morning routine, buying fresh bread for breakfast, has changed very little in that time. But in the past five years, the street has become barely recognizable. Although most people in Iraq have been suffering because of the war, the Kurdish region in the country's north has been growing, becoming unaffordable for the working class.

Bruce is also a news photographer.

In other news, Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential candidate this year and Dissident Voice offers her "A Funny Thing Happened to Me on My Way to the Damascus Conference:"

Today, November 23rd, I was slated to give remarks in Damascus, Syria at a Conference being held to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, sadly, the 60th year that the Palestinian people have been denied their Right of Return enshrined in that Universal Declaration. But a funny thing happened to me while at the Atlanta airport on my way to the Conference: I was not allowed to exit the country.
I do believe that it was just a misunderstanding. But the insecurity experienced on a daily basis by innocent Palestinians is not. Innocent Palestinians are trapped in a violent, stateless twilight zone imposed on them by an international order that favors a country reported to have completed its nuclear triad as many as eight years ago, although Israel has remained ambiguous on the subject. President Jimmy Carter informed us that Israel had as many as 150 nuclear weapons, and Israel’s allies are among the most militarily sophisticated on the planet. Military engagement, then, is untenable. Therefore the exigency of diplomacy and international law.
The Palestinians should at least be able to count on the protections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is happening to Palestinians in Gaza right now, subjected to an Israeli-imposed blockade, has drawn the attention of the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who noted that over half of the civilians in Gaza are children. Even The Los Angeles Times criticized Israel’s lockdown of Gaza that is keeping food, fuel, and medicine from civilians. Even so, Israel stood fast by its decision to seal Gaza’s openings. But where are the voices of concern coming from the corridors of power inside the United States? Is the subject of Palestinian human rights taboo inside the United States Government and its government-to-be? I hope not. Following is the speech I would have given today had I been able to attend the Damascus Conference.

Betty noted Cynthia's article. Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart" went up yesterday.

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

iraq
the new york times
campbell robertson
steven lee myers
the washington post
ernesto londono
andrea bruce
jeremy r. hammond
the world today just nuts
thomas friedman is a great man

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart." Grabbing herself, Tina Fey explains, "Even when I push my breasts up and out like this no one watches. I lost 200,000 more viewers last week. That's 1.2 million who've fled after seeing this season. NBC says I'm being beat in the ratings by the Emergency Broadcasting System. I am America's Sour-Heart. I am."

The overexposed Fey was the topic for a planned three-part series. It started with
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bitchy Tina Fey", it continued with Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present" and this is supposed to be the wrap-up; however, Isaiah is aware of how popular the other two installments have been and there may be a fourth at some point in the near future.


the world today just nuts
comic
bitchy tina fey
tina fey
tina fey americas sour-heart
ghosts of network bombs past and present
the common ills

In today's New York Times, Campbell Robertson and Katherine Zoepf offer up "Iraq Needs Security Pact For Order, Officials Say" and it's really sad that a tree died for this nonsense. The agreement is not needed "for order" or any other purpose. The paper damn well knows a UN mandate can pass the Security Council (Russia's publicly stated it would not veto a proposal). An extension of the UN mandate (set to expire December 31st) could go through much easier than the treaty the White House and its puppet goverment are currently attempting to push through.

A UN extension could go through easily because Nouri al-Maliki's already ignored Parliament's role in that twice now. Twice he's renewed it over Parliament's objection. Parliament is the stumbling bloc for the treaty currently and going after a mandate (of six months or one year) knocks them out of the picture. The mandate has always been the easiest avenue to pursue and the paper damn well knows that. Why they think they can get away with LYING to their readers probably goes to how Michael Gordon remains with the paper even though no reader trusts Gordo.

A UN mandate could be presented, voted on and concluded in one-day. Instead, the White House has publicly been working on this treaty since November 2007. Who's wasting time?

The reporters include this lie: "the security officials on Saturday reiterated that, under the terms of the agreement, all American troops would leave the country by the end of 2011."

Lie!

First off, the US is closing their embassy in Iraq?

I hadn't heard that from friends at the State Dept, in fact, I've heard about how they're planning new drives in an attempt to actually fully staff the US Embassy in Baghdad.

If the embassy remains open then US troops remain on the ground in Iraq. That's reality and lying doesn't change that fact.

They need to stop lying and they need to stop real soon.

Second, the treaty is a one year agreement that either side can break for calendar year 2010 or 2011. In addition, if they extend it to 2010 or 2011, they can modify the terms. There is nothing in writing regarding 2011 that is enforceable. Quit trying to PIMP it off what it could do and focus on what the hell it does do. That would be reporting and it's so damn difficult for the New York Times to ever report. They're like a lying studio head promising "real profit" but you read the contract and they're offering you a slice of the net, not the gross. And they're getting away with it because there is so damn little attention to Iraq and forget your so-called 'independent' media in the US. Pru, however, notes Simon Assaf's "Iraq deal does not end the war" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

It is being hailed as an honourable end to a disreputable war, the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi cabinet last weekend sets out a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities by June 2009, and the whole country by December 2011.
But the deal, the full text of which is yet to be published, will not end the occupation.
By signing the accord the Iraqi government is agreeing to a ten-year mandate for US troops to "guarantee the security of Iraq" against war, coup, rebellion or revolution.
The US will have the right to maintain 50 military bases, store military equipment, control Iraqi airspace, sail warships in its waters and continue its "supervision" of the interior and defence ministries. The military will also have the right to seize any Iraqi "working against US interests". The US has made small concessions over the prosecution of US soliders or citizens who break Iraqi law while not on operation duty -- but this can only be done in agreement with a US military panel.
The deadline for the withdrawal of troops can also be changed if the US or Iraqi government feels that the "situation on the ground" has changed.
Opposition to the agreement threatened to sink the deal. But after threats against the country, which included withdrawal of $50 billion in aid and the sequestration of its assets held in US banks, the Iraqi government caved in.
The powerful Shia religious establishment, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, withdrew its opposition to the pact. All Iraqi parties that are allied to the occupation have also dropped their objections.
Britain hopes for a similar agreement guaranteeing its role in the south of the country.
The only voices of dissent to the accords are those of rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters. Sadr has denounced the accords and called a protest on Friday of this week.
Far from ending the occupation, the Status of Forces Agreement would leave the US in almost total control of the country, and guarantee the future of the occupation.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Obama's new strategy as the US faces defeat in Afghanistan
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

The US has over thirty-times the amount of service members stationed in Iraq as does the UK; however, the UK press can pay more attention to Iraq than can the US? That is how it appears and file it under why the war drags on . . .


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

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4,201. And tonight? 4204 is ICCC's count. Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,288,426 up from 1,284,105.

Reuters notes that today's violence included, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left six people injured, two more Baghdad bombings that left eight injured, a Mosul car bombing that injured seven people and two police officers wounded in a drive-by shooting outside Tirkrit.
Saturday's reported violence included the discovery of a mass grave in Iskandariya (10 corpses).

The puppet spoke to the press today. Reuters reports he said his country would not ask for an extension of the United Nations mandate. Really? Call his bluff. (His and the White House's bluff.)

The only thing keeping the puppet in power are US forces on the ground in Iraq and, once upon a time, Joe Biden was damn clear about the fact that it was not in the US' interest to be entering into agreements with al-Maliki or shoring up this puppet government.

al-Maliki's a puppet, he'll do whatever masters tell him to as long as he's allowed to continue to slice off his cut on every US dollar coming into the country and as long as he can hide behind US troops and pretend he is a legitimate leader (as opposed to the third choice of the White House and a grave disappointment since they installed him).We were told (by the same lying press) that Barack was the change ticket. We're not seeing any change. Anyone paying attention to Iraq has yet to see the president-elect step up and insist upon anything he said he would do regarding Iraq. That includes his 16-month withdrawal 'pledge' and it includes his insisting that the treaty must have Congressional approval.

AP reported that the Parliament vote on the treaty, scheduled for Monday, has been pushed back to Wednesday and they note:

Wednesday will likely be the last parliamentary session before the 275-seat legislature goes into recess for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, which falls in the first week of December. Some lawmakers will then travel to Saudi Arabia for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, denying the house a quorum.

The delay provides additional time for those interested to heed this from the 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 [here]
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

New content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: What do you mean 'we'?
TV: Tina Fey to the lido deck, Tina Fey to . . .
10 Cover Classics
Bedtime stories for the Cult of Barack
Joan Didion on the Cult of the Christ-child
Yes, let's stop kidding ourselves (Ava and C.I.)
Music Access
Ike Skelton reminds Death Of Free TV Is Coming
The War Drags On
Highlights

Isaiah's latest goes up after this.

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

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
the new york times
katherine zoepf
simon assaf
the socialist worker
the world today just nuts
the third estate sunday review

Earlier this week, I went to a sort of news conference at the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. For those back in the San Joaquin Valley, it looks a little like a fortified UC Merced with big, government buildings surrounded by blast walls and armed guards. (No photos allowed.)
Two senior U.S. government officials gave their take on the security pact approved by Iraq's Cabinet and setting a course for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by Dec. 31, 2011. A second, related agreement defines Iraqi and American interactions on a slate of issues, such as trade, technology and health care. It's up to Iraq's parliament to decide whether to accept it.
One of the officials said Americans would have no legal justification to be in the country past that date, meaning the pact would have to be renegotiated for foreign soldiers and contractors to stay.
"Its validity ends unless there is an extension," one of the officials said.

The above is from Adam Ashton's "Plans in Iraq call for flexibility" (The Modesto Bee) and, repeating, it is a one year contract with two pick-up options. But it's interesting that US officials declare to the press that the "validity" of the treaty "ends unless there is an extension" which, anyone with a slight grasp of the language grasps is not "And all the troops came home in 2011 and they all lived happily ever after." But we hear about that in The Modesto Bee and not via McClatchy (whom Ashton's been filing for).

The treaty is not and has never been about withdrawal. If it were, there would not be an effort to push the Congress to demand transparency. If the treaty actually dealt with withdrawal the US Congress would have to be involved because there would be no way for the treaty to be passed off as anything other than a treaty -- one requiring Congressional approval.

The treaty maintains the US presence in Iraq. That is why it is sought, that is why it was created. The UN mandate expires Dec. 31st. US troops cannot remain in Iraq without some legal framework (either a new agreement or a renewal of the mandate). Somehow the press has decided to sell the treaty as a promising withdrawal when it does no such thing. It outlines what will happen for one year -- 2009. After 2009, either party can cancel. That's not a three year treaty. It's a one year treaty with the option to exercise a renewal twice. Or the option not to exercise that renewal.

And when the US officials are explaining what could happen next and it involves "an extension," you'd think the press would front page that with banner headlines. But they're far too busy waving pom-poms in the air to do the jobs they were allegedly trained in.


The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:

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

For those who read the print copy of the New York Times, turn to C2 where the real news is. Yeah, 200,000 lost. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

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

Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.
The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement.
The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005.

The above is from Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post) and Stephen Farrell's "Protests in Baghdad on U.S. Pact" covers it in the New York Times:

In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator’s statue in scenes televised around the world.
While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr’s stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement."
Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation."

A few people are noting Ralph Nader in the e-mails (some noting are members). It will not go up here. I'm not interested. It has nothing to do with Ralph's formula of "Clinton = Evil." It has everthing to do with shoddy work and shoddier work being cited. Jeremy Scahill? The punk ass who couldn't call out Samantha Power because she was feeing him things for his writing? Couldn't call out his own personal Deep Throat? He made a fool out of himself and everyone paying attention was laughing their ass off at him. That was then. The only rescue his failed name today is to come out hitting hard. And the piece of his Ralph cites is more hideous garbage. He probably he thinks he's brave for 'calling out' Sarah Sewall -- by hiding behind Tom Hayden. He can't call her out himself because he's too much of a punk ass coward (and because Sammy Power and Sarah Sewar are tight-tight-tight).

We're not highlighting garbage. Ralph citing that bad, bad article makes his own piece garbage. When Jeremy Scahill decides he's tired of cowering in appeasement, he may have something worth saying. He hasn't hit his rock bottom yet and he can muddle through in denial on his own.
It's past time that Sarah Sewar was loudly called out. The War Hawk pushed the illegal war and continues to push it. She publicly stated at the end of last year that the Iraq War couldn't be seen as a failure because it would hurt other wars. She oversaw the counter-insurgency manual. She's a bloody War Hawk and until people can call her out, they're nothing but cowards and appeasers. This crap that's being offered by our 'brave' left wouldn't have cut if John McCain had won the election and it certainly doesn't cut it under the faux 'anti-war' Barack. [For the stupid who still don't get it, Liar Barack is far more dangerous than John McCain because with McCain in the White House the left would have hit the ground running. Instead, too many of us are stuck in a 'holding pattern' afraid to criticize and a huge portion intends to get through four years without launching any serious criticism. And, as we've pointed out for nearly two years now, Barack means AFRICOM. What Bully Boy couldn't get, Barack will.]

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

the washington post
mary beth sheridan
the new york times
stephen farrelll