Tuesday, November 25, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Iraq continues to rake in big bucks and basic services continue to be denied to Iraqis, Parliament's vote on the treaty may take place tomorrow, and more.   Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  The New York Times notes that there is some doubt as to whether a vote will be called in Parliament Wednesday on the treaty.  Last week, it was stated the treaty would come to a voate in the Parliament on Monday.  By Saturday, the date had changed to Wednesday at the earliest.  Now some are questioning whether it will come to a vote by then. Iran's Press TV reports that a boycott is threatened by the Iraqi Accord Front and quotes Abdelkareem al-Samarraie (of the IAF) stating, "The IAF would not enter the parliament if there was no popular referendum over the agreement or assurances from the US side."  In an apparent reaction to that, the puppet is insisting upon action.  Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports Nouri al-Maliki and Iraq's President Jalal Talbani have launced a high-pressure effort to force Iraqi MPs to vote on the treaty tomorrow.  Should the treaty be voted on tomorrow and find 'support' in Parliament, it would next go to the presidency council made up of Talabani and his two vice presidents.  Press TV notes that the Tareq al-Hashemi, the Sunni v.p., has "also called on the country's politicians not to make any 'hasty' decision on the agreement".  Press TV also reports MP Hussein al-Faluji has declared that the treaty should include an obligation on the part of the US "to pay compensation for its 2003 invasion of the country."  'Support' in a vote is still in question because while the US and al-Maliki insist a simple majority vote is all that is needed, leaders and documents (including the country's Constitution) maintain that a two-thirds vote would be needed for the Parliament to pass the treaty.   Pepe Escobar (Asia Times) cites press reports which estimate that opponents of the treaty now have 106 votes but require 138 and that "Maliki's government is heavily betting on the pact being approved by a simple majority. There's fierce dispute also on this point - according to the Iraqi constitution, it should be a two-thirds majority (not unexpectedly, the Bush administration has already declared it will violate Article II, Section 2 of the US constitution, claiming that no Senate approval of the pact is necessary. An emasculated US Congress has responded with thunderous silence)."   In terms of US silence, look to the incoming presidential ticket.  In terms of Congress, many members of the House have been vocal.  Today US House Rep Joe Sestak contributes "Acute flaw in Iraq deal over forces" (Philadelphia Inquirer):   On Nov. 16, the Iraqi cabinet approved a U.S.-Iraqi status-of-forces agreement. This week, as the Iraqi parliament considers it for final approval, I am once again voicing my grave concerns about the agreement.                This is probably the last chance I and other lawmakers will get to voice our objections. President Bush has chosen to craft the document as an executive agreement instead of a treaty, which means it will not require congressional ratification.             I have always believed that the war in Iraq is a tragic misadventure that has siphoned off vital military capability from Afghanistan - especially our ability to patrol the border with Pakistan, where al-Qaeda's leadership has found a long-standing haven. That said, from my 31-year military background, I also understand the need for a deliberate withdrawal from Iraq that does not put our troops in unnecessary danger.           Our continued presence in the region will therefore be necessary for a limited period of time. And due to the imminent expiration of the U.N. mandate that permits U.S. troops to remain in Iraq legally, we must have a new legal agreement to remain after Dec. 31.          However, this status-of-forces agreement is simply not the best means of achieving that.      Americans should be very concerned that, in an attempt to highlight Iraqi autonomy and the increasing bilateral ties between our countries, President Bush has put our uniformed men and women in legal peril.   The final version of the agreement will permit the Iraqi courts to exercise jurisdiction over American soldiers under limited circumstances. What those circumstances are remains unclear, as do the crimes for which they may be prosecuted.  Back in July, US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro co-authored "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post). Last week, DeLauro issued this statement:   "Our brave men and women in uniform have performed brilliantly and after more than five -and-a-half years of war I am pleased to see the Bush Administration finally acknowledge that it is in our national interest to set a timeline to responsibly redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Many questions remain, however, over an agreement that I believe must be approved by Congress in order to have the force of law. Yet, the administration, which has utterly failed to consult with Congress on this issue, has no intention of submitting the accord for approval." "The Iraqi Parliament is beginning a robust debate over the agreement, literally breaking out into a physical confrontation earlier today. According to the Iraqi Constitution, a 2/3 majority vote is still needed to both pass a law regulating the ratification of international agreements in general and to approve the U.S-Iraq security agreement itself."         "While I applaud efforts in Iraq to uphold the country's new constitution, I am deeply troubled by the Bush Administration's disregard for ours. I have heard from scholars, legal experts and others on this matter and believe there is no precedent for an agreement such as this that authorizes offensive U.S. combat operations without congressional approval."          "It is highly unlikely that the agreement will be approved by the Iraqi Parliament before it recesses in less than a week and by the U.S. Congress before the U.N. Mandate expires on December 31. I strongly urge the administration to once again work with the Iraqi Government and the UN Security Council on a brief extension of the UN Mandate, the sole instrument providing our troops with the legal authority to fight in Iraq, while giving both legislative bodies the necessary time to carefully review, deliberate over and vote on the accord. An agreement of this magnitude for the future of both countries deserves that much."   DeLauro issued that statement the same day Delahunt chaired a Congressional hearing on the issue last week.  In the case of the hearing, it wasn't Congress members that were silent, it was the press.  The only major daily newspaper coverage of the hearing was Jenny Paul's "US-Iraq security pact may be in violation, Congress is told" (Boston Globe) and no evening network newscast covered it. And NPR didn't cover it nor did Pacifica Radio, not even its fabled "Free Speech" Radio News program. No special broadcast of the hearings live, not a damn thing from Pacifica which wasted more money than they had to waste on their hideous election coverage and are now so in the red they're at risk of losing stations.  (That's not a cry for donations, they've so mismanaged listeners pledges that they really don't deserve any more.)  (Not to mention abusing the public's trust and LYING on air repeatedly by refusing to identify on air 'independent critics' who had endorsed the candidate they came on to 'analyze.')  So Congress, at least the House, really isn't the problem.  The problem is the press: All Things Media Big and Small.  Congress has not been silent.  US House Rep Barbara Lee issued the following statement last week:     "Although a final version of the agreement reached by the Administration and the Government of Iraq has yet to be publicly announced and made available, reports of the content along with leaked copies of the agreement lead to the conclusion that this agreement will be unacceptable to the American people in its current form and should be rejected.          "For starters, the Bush agreement commits the United States to a timetable that could leave U.S. troops in Iraq until Dec. 31, 2011. Aside from the fact that the America people are plainly fed up with this unnecessary war and occupation in Iraq and want to see it ended, occupying Iraq for three more years under the Bush plan would cost American taxpayers $360 billion based on current spending levels. That money obviously could be better spent digging our economy out of the ditch the policies of the Bush Administration has put it in.        "Second, the Bush agreement undermines the constitutional powers of the next president by subjecting American military operations to 'the approval of the Iraqi government,' by giving operational control to 'joint mobile operations command centers' controlled by a joint American-Iraqi committee. Throughout history, American troops have been placed under foreign control in peacekeeping operations only where authorized under treaties ratified by the Senate. No American president has ever before claimed the unilateral power to cede command of American troops to a foreign power.           "When Congress next convenes this week, it should consider and pass H.R. 6846, which I have introduced in the House and Senator Biden has introduced in the Senate, which will prohibit the unilateral deployment of U.S. armed forces or the expenditure of public funds to guarantee the security of Iraq without prior approval of Congress."   The US is pushing hard for the vote to take place tomorrow. This morning on Air Force One, White House spokesperson Dana Perino told the press that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was in contact (pressuring) with Iraqi MPs and she stated of the treaty, "We're hopeful.  They've had a lot of debate in their country.  And I think that if you look at the violence that took place there yesterday that was indiscriminate and killed many people, that it reminds us that the Iraqis have come a long way, but they're not quite there yet to be able to take care of all their security needs on their own.  And they need -- they continue to need our support.  That's what Prime Minister Maliki has said, their Defense Ministry, amongst others.  But they'll have their debate.  And this si the process that we knew was going to take a while.  But we remain hopeful that the council of representatves will pass it out tomorrow."  Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (International Herald Tribune) report, "Intensive last-minute negotiations were under way Tuesday to corral votes in the Iraqi Parliament" -- see, Crocker's very, very busy.  Deborah Haynes and Wail al-Haforth (Times of London) report that the Iraqi Accord Front has stated "it will only give the nod if the public is allowed to vote on the deal in a referendum next year."  Haynes also reports on the various reactions in Baghdad to the allegedly impending vote including this: "Ibti Sam al-Hafaji, an assistant hairdresser and beauticiain dressed in a white overall, plans to switch a small television set in the salon on to watch the Parliamentary vote on Wednesday. 'I am excited.  All of us are waiting for the result'." Tina Susman and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) explain, "Sunni lawmakers today listed a host of demands, ranging from sweeping political reforms to amnesty for prisoners, in exchange for supporting a pact to keep U.S. forces in Iraq through 2011, dimming Iraqi leaders' hopes for a smooth victory when parliament votes on the measure."   And the puppet is sweating bullets as he attempts to finally deliver to the White House anything of the things they've announced they must have.  Pepe Escobar also notes that "a frantic Maliki keeps threatening that in case of defeat, "extending the presence of the international forces on Iraqi soil will not be our alternative". Maliki goes for the jugular; if the pact is not approved, US forces will be constrained to an "immediate withdrawal from Iraq". Not surprisingly, the US State Department is on the same wavelength. Plus, of course, the Pentagon -- which in a surreal twist has been threatening to evacuate 150,000 troops from Iraq in a flash in case the pact is knocked out; this when the Pentagon had been insisting non-stop that withdrawing within president-elect Barack Obama-proposed 16 months is unrealistic."  Yes, but we all learned in 2008 that troops can leave very quickly and, in fact, that if Barack wanted to end the illegal war, he could withdraw all 150,000 US troops before his first 100 days were completed.  AP's Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra note that, for all of his bluster, "it is improbable that al-Maliki would abandon the idea of a renewal of the UN madate and push out the Americans, given his worries about security."  He doesn't have the guts and he doesn't have the power.  If the treaty isn't passed by the Parliament or if it isn't passed by the presidency council, al-Maliki will be begging for a UN mandate renewal in full -- and not just the partial aspect he's going to ask for to prevent Iraqi assets from being seized by creditors.  Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports that the vote is being seen as a referendrum on al-Maliki, that the puppet is seen as "autocratic" and quotes an unnamed "senior Iraqi official" stating, "He doesn't realize that a coalition put him in power."   American Freedom Campaign offers an option for you to be heard by the US Congress: 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   Turning to economics, UPI reports that that October was a turnaround for Iraqi oil following the "four-month decline" as Iraq upped exports "by more than 7 percent from Sepember through October" and while oil sales brought Iraq $41 billion in 2007, in 2008 so far, they've already taken in $58.6 billion.  This while Reuters reports that "Iraq has approved a $144 million contract with Argentina's Tenaris Oil Filed Service, the world's largest maker of seamless steel pipes for the energy inudstry".  Yesterday Edward Gismatullin (Bloomberg News) reported that Royal Dutch "Sehll may bid for Iraqi fields in the first half of 2009".  The desire for new contracts (read: Greed) comes as Shell's older contract is in the news.  Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) notes that Iraq's Parliament today publicly objected to a flare gas contract awarded to Shell earlier this year and Rasheed quotes a portion of the statement: "Shell will be the sole company entitled to deal or process gas in southern Iraq.  We call this a monopoly on Iraqi gas . . . Shell will seize everything."  Despite all the money coming in, Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) reports that the Sadr City section of Baghdad is still plagued by "lakes of sewage overflow trenches or bubble up from broken underground pipes" and also notes "electricity is still spotty, drinking water is scarce and health care is limited".   Let's stay with money for a bit more.  Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) examines who pays Saif Abdallah who was bragging to him in 2006 that he had "helped kill dozens, possibly hundreds of American soldiers" and Ghosh quotes Abdallah stating then, "Anybody who wants to kill American soldiers, if they pay me, I work for them." And now the US tax payers fork over to Abdallah because he's an "Awakening" Council member.  As a little over half of the "Awakening" members have been turned over to Baghdad's control, Ghosh explores what might happen to the thugs placed on the payroll by the US military command:   Many Iraqis believe the al-Maliki government will string the SOI along while U.S. troops remain in the country. When the Americans have left, there will be a reckoning -- and it could well be bloody.    After a great deal of pressure from the U.S. military, the Iraqi government this month finally took charge of paying the salaries for the 54,000 SOI in the Baghdad area. (Abdallah's group remains on the U.S. payroll.) In early November, 3,000 SOI were inducted into the police training academy. Al-Ameri says 15,000 to 20,000 SOI will be inducted into Iraqi security forces, but only after further verification. The rest will have to give up their arms and take up other jobs -- as carpenters, plumbers, electricians and so on. "We'll give them training if necessary," he adds. (See pictures of Iraq's revival.)   From thugs to arms.  Over the weekend, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported that, without the knowledge of the central government in Baghdad or the US, the Kurdistan region of Iraq had "three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria which has "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."  Today the Post quotes al-Maliki spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stating, I don't deny there is some tension between the KRG and the federal government due to many issues.  It won't reach to a level of conflict."  Press TV quotes the KRG's official response: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq.  With that continued threat, nothing in the constitution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense."  Meanwhile Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) explains that the August 2007 production-sharing contracts the Kurdish government signed with various corporations continue to be ruled "illegal".   Moving to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people and a Nineveh bombing wounded two people.   Shootings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 child wounded in a Mosul shooting.   Corpses?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in the Tigris River, near Suwayra.   Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from a non-battle related cause in Diyala province Nov. 24. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings to 4205 the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war."    In news of Iraq's refugee crisis, UNHCR spokesperson William Spindler announced today:   High Commissioner António Guterres arrives in Baghdad today for a 3-day visit that will include meetings with top government officials and a review of UNHCR's work with our national and international staff in the country. The Iraq mission is the third by Guterres in 18 months and will include field visits aimed at getting a better perspective on programmes for internally displaced Iraqis as well as prospects for the possible eventual return of refugees. There are more than 2 million IDPs and close to 2 million Iraqi refugees outside the country, according to figures provided by host governments.   *** Non-Iraq related, Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) notes an upcoming event. And if you're not familiar with Marcelo Lucero's murder, you can see Third's "Marcelo murdered by thugs, ignored by 'leaders'". ****   Greens in Suffolk work to stop the hate and to honor the life of Marcelo Lucero The Green Party of Suffolk offers its condolences to the family of Marcelo Lucero, and hopes for an awakening and healing on Long Island after the hate crime that led to his death. The Green Party is a different kind of political party. The Green Party was created from, and works together with, larger movements for social justice, such as the environmental movement and the civil rights movement. In Suffolk County, members of the Green Party have struggled with ways to address the murder of Marcelo Lucero through their personal efforts, movement efforts, and electoral efforts. The Green Party sees the election process as a powerful way to address grievances with our government and to force change. Because of this, when local Greens were concerned with the direction of the County Executive during his last campaign, and concerned that he was cross-endorsed by both major parties, the Green Party set out to offer an alternative on the ballot. The Green Party campaign for County Executive in 2007 focused on tolerance and respect for immigrants.   Unfortunately, due to the collaboration between the major parties, the fact that the major parties in Albany write the ballot laws, and the fact that the major parties control the Board of Elections, our candidate was not allowed on the ballot. Still, the Green Party continued with a write-in campaign. The Green Party candidate for County Executive was able to speak to local groups about the need to create fair immigration policies, and the need to stop discriminatory laws being proposed in the Suffolk County Legislature. We were able to hold meetings and create press releases suggesting more positive directions for government action in regards to the treatment of immigrants. And, voters had the option to protest government actions by writing in a worthy candidate who expressed their views. As a movement, the Green Party is part of an international movement focused on its four pillars: Social and economic justice; Grassroots Democracy; Ecological Wisdom; and Non-violence. There are partisan and non-partisan networks, list-serves and clubs where Green Party members share action alerts, information, and proposals for public policy. Personally, many local greens have addressed the issue of racism in the community and in their own lives. Green Party members have attended community meetings, vigils, and rallies to speak out against racism and against the murder of Marcelo Lucero based on discrimination against Hispanic people. The Green Party has offered people of all races workshops in dismantling racism and in understanding how white privilege affects all of us. The Babylon Green Party will host a presentation on "The Necessity of Immigrants to the LI Economy" with speaker Kirby Einhorn of LI Wins, on January 7, 2009 at 7pm at the Pisces Café in Babylon.      The Green Party of Suffolk is interested in gathering together people interested in working on issues of social justice through a personal, movement, and/or electoral strategy. And, we are especially interested in people who may want to be candidates or campaign staff for upcoming races against politicians who are not making fair and equal public policy. The local Green Party can be contacted at (631) 351-5763 or go to: www.gpsuffolk.org.                   Background:   Green Party of Suffolk: www.gpsuffolk.org   More information on the Babylon Green Party Gathering: The January 7, 2009 Babylon Green Party Gathering will feature Kirby Einhorn of LI Wins on the necessity of immigrants to the LI economy.The event will be held at Pisces Café, 14A Railroad Avenue, Babylon, NY (631-321-1231) www.piscescafe.net Come hungry! For directions to the Babylon Green Gathering, call 631-422-4702 or email ian.wilder@yahoo.com Children are welcome. All gatherings are free of charge, and open to the public.     iraq the new york times   pepe escobar  jenny paul the boston globe bill delahunt rosa delauro joe sestak alissa j. rubin the new york times katherine zoepf campbell robertson deborah haynes the washington post ernesto londono the los angeles times tina susman

Today the US military announced [PDF format warning]: "TIKRIT, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died from a non-battle related cause in Diyala province Nov. 24. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings to 4205 the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

In the Los Angeles Times, Tina Susman's "Release of Iranian raises questions in Iraq" explores the meaning of the release of alleged Iranian arms smuggler (alleged by the US military) Nader Qorbani from military custody:

Qorbani was detained at the Baghdad airport, but various U.S. and Iraqi officials have given different accounts of whether it was U.S., Iraqi or private security forces that took him into custody. U.S. officials have said he was handed over to the Iraqi government, which said he was freed Friday.
On Monday, the hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan said Iranian intervention was responsible for Qorbani being freed. It said Qorbani was an innocent contractor responsible for the "repairing and maintaining of the holy sites in Iraq," Iran's neighbor.
U.S. military officials, who heralded Qorbani's Nov. 18 capture with a press release headlined, "Forces detain Iranian involved in lethal aid shipments," said his job was a cover for smuggling weapons into Iraq in boxes of building materials. It said Qorbani was carrying cocaine and was attempting to leave Iraq when he was arrested at the airport.
American military and political officials in Baghdad have refused to say publicly whether Iranian pressure led to Qorbani's release.

And we'll stay with mystery crimes to note this from today's "Around the World" briefs round up in the Washington Post:

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) had quietly shipped in three C-130 cargo planes loaded with guns and bullets from Bulgaria, stirring concerns among U.S. officials over possible armed confrontation between the Kurds and the Iraqi government.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said officials would not oppose the Kurds arming their police if it was aimed at strengthening national or regional security.
"I don't deny there is some tension between the KRG and the federal government due to many issues," Dabbagh said. "It won't reach to a level of conflict."

That's referring to Ernesto Londono's "Kurds in N. Iraq Receive Arms From Bulgaria: 3 Planeloads of Munitions Worry Officials in Baghdad" which Lloyd highlighted here Monday morning.

Now we're returning to the topic of the treaty. (Why am I reminded of the group therapy scene in Death Becomes Her?) This is from US House Rep Joe Sestak's "Acute flaw in Iraq deal over forces" (Philadelphia Inquirer):

On Nov. 16, the Iraqi cabinet approved a U.S.-Iraqi status-of-forces agreement. This week, as the Iraqi parliament considers it for final approval, I am once again voicing my grave concerns about the agreement.
This is probably the last chance I and other lawmakers will get to voice our objections. President Bush has chosen to craft the document as an executive agreement instead of a treaty, which means it will not require congressional ratification.
I have always believed that the war in Iraq is a tragic misadventure that has siphoned off vital military capability from Afghanistan - especially our ability to patrol the border with Pakistan, where al-Qaeda's leadership has found a long-standing haven. That said, from my 31-year military background, I also understand the need for a deliberate withdrawal from Iraq that does not put our troops in unnecessary danger.
Our continued presence in the region will therefore be necessary for a limited period of time. And due to the imminent expiration of the U.N. mandate that permits U.S. troops to remain in Iraq legally, we must have a new legal agreement to remain after Dec. 31.
However, this status-of-forces agreement is simply not the best means of achieving that.
Americans should be very concerned that, in an attempt to highlight Iraqi autonomy and the increasing bilateral ties between our countries, President Bush has put our uniformed men and women in legal peril.
The final version of the agreement will permit the Iraqi courts to exercise jurisdiction over American soldiers under limited circumstances. What those circumstances are remains unclear, as do the crimes for which they may be prosecuted.
That is one of many considerations not explicitly laid out in the text of the agreement, and it's likely there will be future conflicts between the two governments over matters of interpretation.
Procedural standards, such as rules of evidence to be used in trials of American soldiers, are also notably lacking. The agreement merely stipulates that a committee "shall establish procedures and mechanisms" at a future date. The agreement can hardly be described as comprehensive.

Ike Skelton, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has also raised the above objections. Others on the record include US House Reps Bill Delahunt and Rosa DeLauro who penned July 8th's "The Wrong Partnership for Iraq" (Washington Post). November 19th, Delahunt chaired a committee hearing on the treaty (see that day's snapshot) and DeLauro's office issued the following statement that day:

Bush Administration should submit accord to Congress for approval and seek extension of UN Mandate
Washington, DC -- Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3) issued the following statement after attending a briefing with other Members of Congress by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan Lieutenant General Douglas Lute on the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. The accord sets the parameters for the redeployment of U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and for the complete withdrawal from Iraq of all American troops by the end of 2011. It also includes provisions relating to legal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel and control over military operations. The agreement would replace the U.N. Mandate providing the legal authority for U.S. combat operations in Iraq, which is set to expire on December 31, 2008.
"Our brave men and women in uniform have performed brilliantly and after more than five -and-a-half years of war I am pleased to see the Bush Administration finally acknowledge that it is in our national interest to set a timeline to responsibly redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Many questions remain, however, over an agreement that I believe must be approved by Congress in order to have the force of law. Yet, the administration, which has utterly failed to consult with Congress on this issue, has no intention of submitting the accord for approval."
"The Iraqi Parliament is beginning a robust debate over the agreement, literally breaking out into a physical confrontation earlier today. According to the Iraqi Constitution, a 2/3 majority vote is still needed to both pass a law regulating the ratification of international agreements in general and to approve the U.S-Iraq security agreement itself."
"While I applaud efforts in Iraq to uphold the country’s new constitution, I am deeply troubled by the Bush Administration’s disregard for ours. I have heard from scholars, legal experts and others on this matter and believe there is no precedent for an agreement such as this that authorizes offensive U.S. combat operations without congressional approval."
"It is highly unlikely that the agreement will be approved by the Iraqi Parliament before it recesses in less than a week and by the U.S. Congress before the U.N. Mandate expires on December 31. I strongly urge the administration to once again work with the Iraqi Government and the UN Security Council on a brief extension of the UN Mandate, the sole instrument providing our troops with the legal authority to fight in Iraq, while giving both legislative bodies the necessary time to carefully review, deliberate over and vote on the accord. An agreement of this magnitude for the future of both countries deserves that much."
Congresswoman DeLauro earlier this year introduced the Iraq Strategic Agreement Review Act to ensure congressional consultations and approval of the agreement (H.R. 4959) and joined Congressman Bill Delahunt (MA-10) in introducing the Protect Our Troops and Our Constitution Act (H.R. 5626), which similarly calls for a congressional voice in the agreement and an extension of the U.N. Mandate. She has also participated in several House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearings on the accord.

Last week US House Rep Barbara Lee's office released the following:


Renews call for passage of H.R. 6846 prohibiting President from unilaterally deploying U.S. armed forces or expending public funds to guarantee the security of Iraq
Washington D.C. -- Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) today issued the following statement criticizing the terms of the U.S.-Iraq security agreement approved yesterday by the Iraqi Cabinet and is now awaiting approval of the Iraqi Parliament. Congresswoman Lee renews her call for swift action of legislation she recently introduced, H.R. 6846, the "Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008," when the Congress convenes this week. This legislation will prohibit the unilateral deployment of U.S. armed forces or the expenditure of public funds to guarantee the security of Iraq without prior approval of Congress.
"Although a final version of the agreement reached by the Administration and the Government of Iraq has yet to be publicly announced and made available, reports of the content along with leaked copies of the agreement lead to the conclusion that this agreement will be unacceptable to the American people in its current form and should be rejected.
"For starters, the Bush agreement commits the United States to a timetable that could leave U.S. troops in Iraq until Dec. 31, 2011. Aside from the fact that the America people are plainly fed up with this unnecessary war and occupation in Iraq and want to see it ended, occupying Iraq for three more years under the Bush plan would cost American taxpayers $360 billion based on current spending levels. That money obviously could be better spent digging our economy out of the ditch the policies of the Bush Administration has put it in.
"Second, the Bush agreement undermines the constitutional powers of the next president by subjecting American military operations to 'the approval of the Iraqi government,' by giving operational control to 'joint mobile operations command centers' controlled by a joint American-Iraqi committee. Throughout history, American troops have been placed under foreign control in peacekeeping operations only where authorized under treaties ratified by the Senate. No American president has ever before claimed the unilateral power to cede command of American troops to a foreign power.
"When Congress next convenes this week, it should consider and pass H.R. 6846, which I have introduced in the House and Senator Biden has introduced in the Senate, which will prohibit the unilateral deployment of U.S. armed forces or the expenditure of public funds to guarantee the security of Iraq without prior approval of Congress."

By the way Abeer Mohammed and Mudhafer al-Husaini's "18 Are Killed in 3 Bombings in Baghdad" in this morning's New York Times (or whomever wrote it) does a much better job of portraying Iraqi objection than the nonsense yesterday. Had the Times not tried to play some shell game on readers, that would have been the thrust of this morning's earlier entry.

Those who want to make their voice heard on the treaty can use the links provided by 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

FYI, in Iraq today, Antonio Guterres begins a visit that will last through Thursday, he is the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees and we'll be there in that capacity. UNHCR notes:

High Commissioner António Guterres arrives in Baghdad today for a 3-day visit that will include meetings with top government officials and a review of UNHCR's work with our national and international staff in the country.

The Iraq mission is the third by Guterres in 18 months and will include field visits aimed at getting a better perspective on programmes for internally displaced Iraqis as well as prospects for the possible eventual return of refugees.

There are more than 2 million IDPs and close to 2 million Iraqi refugees outside the country, according to figures provided by host governments.

In the New York Times, Thom Shanker reports on the White House's efforts to alter their 'coalition of the willing' lists without notification of alterations. And, a point Ava and I have made for 12 months now, Barack's campaign was not a small-donors campaign. That was always a lie. It was a lie when Liar Goody repeated it non-stop on Democracy Now! and it remains a lie. The New York Times again revists via Michael Luo today. Luo notes "only 26 percent of the money" in the primaries "and 24 percent" in the general election "came from contributors whose total donations added up to $200 or less." Lies. Lies Goody has never and will never correct. And the Times didn't just stumble upon this, they've been reporting on it for some time (since 2007). Goody was one of the worst (and repeat) offenders and this is one example, "TV: Democracy Sometimes?:"

On January 3rd, Goodman interviewed Allan Nairn and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos allegedly about the advisers working for the presidential candidates. Beaucar Vlahos is a conservative so we'll mainly focus on the embarrassment that was Nairn. But note, Goodman wants to start with Hillary and brings in both guests for that. Then Goodman decides it's time for Obama and she shuts Beaucar Vlahos out of the discussion. She'll move on to John Edwards (tossed to Nairn) and wait until both candidates have been discussed at length before she'll ask Beaucar Vlahos "would you like to add to any of the advisers Allan just talked about? And then we'll move on to the Republicans." After Beaucar Vlahos notes that they are all the same and the immense money that they all have, Goodman will put forth the lie that Obama gets huge amounts of monies from the grassroots (Goodman regularly cites The New York Times, she's aware of their article about Obama calling t-shirt, bumper stickers, and other sales "donations" to create the impression of small donors and she should also damn well be aware of the huge amounts of monies he's receiving from Big Business). She'll toss to Nairn to praise the alleged miracle of small donors and Nairn will get off this howler:

He actually doesn't need to finance his campaign, to go to the hedge funds, to go to Wall Street. But he does anyway. And he does, I think, because if he doesn't, they wouldn't trust him. They might think that he's on the wrong team, and they might start attacking him. He is someone who, in terms of the money he needs for his campaign, he could afford to come out for single-payer healthcare, for example, but he doesn't. He doesn't need money from the health insurance industry, that's wasting several percentage points of the American GDP in a way that no other industrial rich country in the world does, yet he chooses not to do that, because he doesn't want to be attacked by those corporations.

Nairn is (illogically and with no basis in reality) arguing that, yes, Obama does take big money but he only does so because, if he didn't, big money would attack him. It's a laughable 'theory' and a generous one -- one that's not extended to other candidates.

Remember that when Allan Nairn tries to rewrite history on the corporatist War Hawk he helped install. Remember that Allan and Amy could play Look-At-Us-Only-We-Care-For-East-Timor to get some headlines (and CBS Evening News coverage) a little while back but they LIED and IGNORED Barack's connections to East Timor. While raking Hillary's advisors over the coals, the two who supposedly give a damn about East Timor were perfectly willing to stay silent about Barack's advisors responsible for the slaughters in East Timor.

There's some revisionary b.s. going on online -- including from the drug addict who'll never work in that town again -- and it's not going to play. You're not going to now act surprised that Barack's a corporatist War Hawk. Nor, after having thrown leeches on Hillary day after day, are you going to get away with, "I never really said there was a big difference between them." You're not going to rewrite history and get away with it. You lied repeatedly to install Barack. You better start praying he doesn't declare war on Iran and praying hard because not only will that be blood on your hands, it will lead to some of the strongest criticism you've ever experienced and you're already tawdry reputations will be slashed even further.

It's not that you were wrong, it's that you lied. Repeatedly. And there is a price to pay for that.

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

iraq
the los angeles times
tina susman
the washington post
ernesto londono

The New York Times owns both the paper of the same name and the International Herald Tribune (after having lied, cheated and schemed to ditch the Washington Post from co-ownership of the latter). What's the real difference between the two outlets? It appears to boil down to a word here and a word there. For example, the New York Times reporting on yesterday's bombings:

The driver of the minibus, who survived the blast, was the father of two boys who were among 30 children killed while taking candy from an American convoy in an infamous 2005 car bombing in New Baghdad, said Hadi J. Abdullah, the general director of the State Shopping Centers Company.

And the International Herald Tribune reporting on yesterday's bombings:

Meanwhile, the general director of the State Shopping Centers Company, Hadi Abdullah, noted that the driver of the minibus, who survived the blast, was the father of two boys who were among 30 children killed while taking candy from an American convoy in an infamous 2005 car bombing in New Baghdad.

If the bylines were the same on both articles (ignore end credits, this isn't a film), it wouldn't be a big deal. But the Times today runs yesterday's International Herald Tribune story with only a minor tweak here and there ("Later Monday morning" in IHT becomes "Later on Monday morning" in NYT) and all it does is question who the reporters were for the story? IHT credits Alissa J. Rubin and Katherine Zoepf while this morning's New York Times credits Abeer Mohammed and Mudhafer al-Husaini. The two articles are identical with a tiny number of chagnes (less than seven) that are no more than one word changes such as the addition of "on" in the example offered in this paragraph. (And both are also highly similar to Rubin and Alan Cowell's report online for the Times yesterday. The only real difference between the online report and the other two is in some of the opening paragraphs.)

From the article(s), we'll note this on the female suicide bomber who attacked outside the Green Zone:

"In the last three months we’re really seeing an increase, mostly in Baghdad and Diyala," Dr. Samarrai said. She added that early media reports of the Monday blast suggesting that the bomber was mentally handicapped were "a big lie."
"There is no evidence for this," Dr. Samarrai continued. "These women are not crazy or mentally ill; they are hopeless. They hate life. They are women who have lost everything."

There were three bombings in Baghdad. The one that resulted in the most deaths was the bombing of the mini-bus. Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher's "3 Deadly Blasts Hit Iraq Ahead of Security Pact Vote" (Washington Post) explains:

The attacks illustrated the vulnerability of Iraq's security apparatus and the lingering defiance of an insurgency whose influence has declined in recent months.
In the deadliest attack, a magnetic bomb demolished a bus used by employees of the Ministry of Trade, killing 14 people and wounding seven, police said. Eight women were among the dead. The bomb, police said, was attached to the fuel tank of the bus, which erupted in flames.
Fuad Falih, a policeman guarding a checkpoint about 90 feet from the site of the explosion, said one of the victims was a pregnant woman. Hospital officials said many of the victims were incinerated in the bus.

The third Baghdad bombing is addressed briefly in Adam Ashton and Hussein Kadhim's "3 bombs kill at least 16 Iraqis in attacks in Baghdad" (McClatchy Newspapers):

A third bombing targeted a police patrol in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood about 11 a.m. near the Technology University. It killed one person and wounded five, including three police officers. Later in the day, a mortar round struck Baghdad's southern outskirts, wounding six people, police said.
The U.S. military has tracked a major decrease in attacks in Baghdad over the past year -- about 85 percent since October 2007 -- and it thinks that Iraqis are turning against the sectarian violence that rocked the country in 2006 and 2007.

Michael Heath (Bloomberg News) also notes that bombing: "Also yesterday in eastern Baghdad, a roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed a civilian and wounded five people, including three policemen, AFP reported."

The United Nations issued the following statement on the bombings:

The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Staffan de Mistura strongly condemned the series of bombings in Baghdad today, killing and injuring numbers of innocent civilians heading to work.
The SRSG notes with great concern the recent spike in violence in the country's capital and urges all parties to deny those behind such repugnant attacks the opportunity to undermine efforts to increase the country's fragile stability.
"There are no moral or political excuses that could possibly justify the deliberate targetting of innocent citizens whose only crime was to try to get to their place of work", the SRSG said, extending the United Nations' sincere condolences to the bereaved families and its wishes for the full and speedy recovery for the wounded.

There is some doubt as to whether a vote will be called in Parliament Wednesday on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. The NYT/IHT article notes that and a new development is reported by Iran's Press TV:

The main Sunni-Arab bloc in the Iraqi Parliament threatens to boycott a parliament session to vote on the Iraq-US security agreement.
"The IAF would not enter the parliament if there was no popular referendum over the agreement or assurances from the US side," Abdelkareem al-Samarraie, a leading lawmaker from the Iraqi Accord Front (IAF), told the Voices of Iraq on Tuesday.


And we'll continue to 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


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

iraq
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
qais mizher
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
katherine zoepf
adam ashton
mcclatchy newspapers michael heath

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