Today, Iraq's Parliament passed the treaty (without a two-thirds vote) and the White House finally released some version of the treaty in English. Meanwhile Matthew D. Laplante's "Military mum on dirty air in Iraq" (Salt Lake Tribune) reports the US government is using the "national security" classification to avoid releasing a 2006 Enivornmental Health Site Assessment regarding Balad Air Base where a burn pit was utilized and may have resulted in damage to the health of those who were stationed there: "Now that report has been classified. And Col. Thomas Logan, who commands the center, refuses to say why. Logan declined to be interviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune. A spokeswoman only repeated that information in the report could damage national security if it were made public."

Earlier this month, IRIN raised another health safey issue in "IRAQ: Nuclear contamination in northern province of Ninevah?" which noted:


According to two local officials, the plant - which was built in the early 1980s by a group of European and Russian companies for the government of former president Saddam Hussein - is suspected of causing a number of cancers and deformities among babies and adults.
"The province's health authorities have registered a number of deformities among newborns as well as a number of cancers among adults. The health authorities suspect that a radiation leak and contamination from a former nuclear plant is the cause of the deformities and cancers," Governor Duraid Kashmola said.

The toxic effects of Depleted Uranimum and other weapons used by the US in Iraq will, no doubt, be explored 'in the future.'

On the future, for this site, it has been addressed at Third and in newsletters but a number of non-members have e-mailed so the plan was for this site to go dark after the election (last week in fact). Ava and I were going to review a show a friend is working on but agreed to wait until mid-season. We agreed to that without even thinking that mid-season would be after that. Community member Stan wanted to start a site for some time and his big concern this month was he'd be starting just as everyone was stopping. He started Oh Boy It Never Ends this month and I told him I could probably make it to April. After April? I'm not making any plans.

What I would really like -- if I didn't have to write the entries between now and then -- would be to here December 31, 2011 so we could review every LIAR in the press who has made a point to schill for the administration. It would be wonderful to be here then and to say, "Are troops out? B-b-b-but, the press said . . ."

As appalling as Big Media has been (and there have been exceptions), it's been shameful that Little Media couldn't do a damn thing. How many useless hours do they have to fill at Pacifica and they couldn't cover the Congressional hearing on the treaty last week or delve into the realities of the treaty. What a waste of the broadcast spectrum. What a waste of print and 'internet highway' for The Nation, The Progressive and all the rest who avoided addressing the issue. They didn't have of value to offer on any other real topic but they had time to gas bag and lie and be the usual waste that they always are. They're disgusting and they're disgraceful and they can't real jobs so they have to beg people to donate so that their 'work' can continue. They're street beggars posing as journalists.

So it would be great if I woke up tomorrow and it was December 31, 2011. I honestly do not see going that long. (However, I did not see this site lasting as long as it has.) I don't know when it's ending. I have agree to continue through April of next year. After that, I don't know.

But I do know one and only one organization spoke out against the treaty. 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

Will the treaty be pushed through and Bully Boy allowed to break the law, circumvent the Constitution? He's allegedly a lame-duck president, so why the hell can't anyone stand up to him?

If he's allowed to make a treaty without the Senate's approval, you better be prepared for everything coming down the path afterwards because that will say the Constitution does not matter and that there is no check on the Executive Branch of the federal government.


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

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4201. Tonight? 4207. That's incorrect. The death noted in the snapshot today (announced by MNF) is not included in the tally. So it's actually at least 4202 currently. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,288,426 as the number of Iraqis killed isnce the start of the illegal war, same as last week.


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


iraq
i hate the war
the ballet

american freedom campaign

Thursday, November 27, 2008.  The White House finally releases a copy of the treaty (knowing that everyone's on a holiday), the treaty passes in the Iraqi Parliament (but not by the required number), chaos and violence continue, a war resister seeks asylum in Germany, and more.   "Iraqi lawmakers today approved a pact allowing U.S. forces to stay in the country through 2011 after winning support from skeptics by promising a public referendum on the plan," explain Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) and they go on to note that "[a]ccording to the agreement" troops out in 2011! Which agreement? The Arabic one the puppet government thinks is final or the English one the White House refuses to release because, as Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes." This was noted last week in a Congressional hearing as well so it's really past time to stop speaking of the agreement singular. Salman and Susman do a better job explaining this: The pact, while not explicitly stating that an extension can be sought, allows for amendments if both sides agree to them.U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting a possible extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi security forces in charge. "There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides," one U.S. official said in discussing the pact. Yeah, it's a one-year agreement. Only 2009 cannot be changed or cancelled. Everything else that the White House says is set-in-stone is actually a conditional option that can be wiped away by either side.  Today the White House finally released the agreement in English.  We'll jump in at Article 30 The Period for which the Agreement is Effective:   1) This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.   Get it?  Paragraph three: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect."  Meaning only 2009 is set in stone.  It is too late for either party (US or Iraq) to give one year's notice and cancel it in 2009.  They can give notice to cancel in 2010 or 2011.  The second clause is also worth noting because it weakens the strength of any agreement as well: "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agrement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional proceudures in effect in both countries."  That's the aspect that allows for a change and all the 'flowery' respect for Constitutional procedures is hog wash.  The Iraqi Parliament needed to have two-thirds of all members (not just members present) to pass the treaty today.  They did not have that.  According to their Constitution and their laws, that's what was needed.  In the US, Congressional approval is needed over all treaties and we know that has not take place.  We further know that Barack Obama -- alleged Constitutional scholar -- doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.  He show boated and did his little pretty words number while campaigning but despite all his insisting that the treaty would have to come before the Congress -- including becoming one of thirteen co-sponsors on Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting upon that -- he shut his corporate mouth and put his tiny tail between his legs to slink off like the disgusting, cowering trash he is.  He's not going to stand up for the Constitution 'later.'  He couldn't stand up for it right now.    An agreement built upon a systematic disrespect for the rule of law does not suddenly develop one.  An agreement built upon lies does not suddenly embrace honesty.  The treaty is built on lies and they include the lies to the American people.  Why is the US pursuing this treaty?  The White House keeps talking about these 'recent' gains in Iraq.  Today is November 27th of 2008.  Recent would, for most of us, go back no further than the end of spring.  But Article 25 explains Nouri al-Maliki and Condi Rice notified the United Nations that the Security Council's mandate would be cancelled at the end of this year . . . last year.  al-Maliki's letter was dated December 7th, Rice's December 10th.  'Recent' events?    The agreement the White House has released may not be the official agreement or the final one.  It is the one that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed November 17, 2008. The note above their signatures states: "Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."   That version is published online by the White House in PDF format (click here).  The Bully Boy of the United States released the following statement today:  "Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council. Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely -- but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day."   But wasn't this day 'paved' in December of 2007 when Rice and al-Maliki notified the UN that there would be no extension of the mandate following its December 31, 2008 expiration?    Rumors abound that al-Maliki has consolidated his power with the passage.  For the so-bad it's good reporting, check out Alissa J. Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell of the New York Times proving that reporters can serve up camp too.  In the real world CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer explains that this means an extension of US troops in Iraq and link includes video.  Meanwhile Ruth explained how certain members of the press are actively participating in the manufacture of consent and deliberately distorting what the treaty says (Ruth utilizes Ayad Allawi's "US-Iraq agreement needs work" from the Boston Globe) to make her point.  What happens now in Iraq?  The treaty now goes before Iraq's presidency council where the president or either of the country's two vice-presidents can veto it.  To pass it requires all three give thumbs up.  Only one need give a thumbs down to veto.    The referendrum was included in the vote today and the Los Angeles Times notes: "If voters rejected the agreement in the July 2009 referendum, Iraq's government would have to cancel SOFA or demand changes to it. The terms of the agreement allow either side to give the other a year's notice of cancellation, so if Iraq scrapped the pact, U.S. forces would have to leave the country in July 2010."     Today's violence?  Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing that resulted in the death of 1 police force member, a Baghdadroadside bombing that resulted in the death of an Iraqi soldier with three more wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left sic more people wounded, a Mosul 'sucide' bombing that took the life of the bomber and left six police officers wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 2 civilians with 28 more people wounded.   Meanwhile in Germany a US soldier is seeking aslyum.  Andreas Buerger (Reuters) reports 31-year-old Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd self-checked out of the military in 2007 and is now seeking sancturay in Germany where he held a press conference today and declared: "When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing.  I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . .  Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders."   In Iraq, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres wrapped up a thee day visit by visiting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani:   Guterres, who was accompanied by Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Iraq, said UNHCR's operations for uprooted Iraqis had until now focused primarily on refugees in neighbouring states, mainly Syria and Jordan. He told Al-Sistani that the two nations deserved praise for their generosity to Iraqi refugees. UNHCR supports both nations' efforts to assist the Iraqi refugees.    With the improved security situation in Iraq, including in Najaf itself, UNHCR was now moving toward increasing its presence in the country and stepping up its activities on behalf of internally displaced people and returning refugees, the High Commissioner said. The agency is doubling its budget to US$81 million in 2009 and increasing the number of provincial offices from the current 10 to 14, covering the whole country.         iraq jonathan s. landay mcclatchy newspapers nancy a. youssef adam ashton the los angeles times tina susman the new york times campbell robertson alissa j. rubin stephen farrell cbs news elizabeth palmer ruths report

The treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement has passed the Iraqi Parliament in a vote that found 149 of 198 members voting for it (yes, Parliament has 275 members -- only 198 bothered to show). Our own little Judith Miller is on the spot in Baghdad. Judith, what can you tell us about today's events?

The Iraqi Parliament on Thursday ratified a long-delayed security agreement that lays down a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
The pact was approved by a large majority, with more than 140 of the 198 lawmakers present in the assembly voting in favor. The vote marks a watershed moment in the era of the post-war American occupation, and the onset of a relationship in which Iraq has more sovereignty over U.S. and other foreign troops on its soil.

Well, Judith, we covered the count and had the specifics -- 149, not just "more than 140" but Iran's Press TV says it was 144 and maybe that's why you're hedging on the numbers?. Do you have any anything else to offer? Dig deep. You've practically rubbed yourself raw in the last few days as you've delighted over your ability to lie in print.

The new agreement comes into force when the United Nations mandate that currently governs the American troops expires on Dec 31. The new pact says all American combat forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30 next year and all American troops should be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

Uh-huh. I knew you had more lies to offer -- many, many more. Anything else?

However, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's government, or its successor, can negotiate a later, separate, agreement with the Americans allowing them to stay longer if it believes Iraq is not yet stable enough.

Oh goodness. A little truth came out there, didn't it? Yeah. Yeah, you look shocked. It must be a huge shock for you.

It's not a shock for anyone in this community because the treaty is an extension to allow the US to continue the occupation. It does that via a one year binding agreement. Everything after 2009 is non-binding because it can be altered or the entire contract can be cancelled outright. 2010 and 2011 are options for renewal.

But the press loves to lie, especially the New York Times. And the little liars above are Alissa Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell for "Iraqi Parliament approves security pact" which is up at the International Herald Tribune. Gareth e-mails to note this from the BBC: "The decision, praised by US President George Bush, means US troops will leave Iraqi streets by mid-2009 and will quit Iraq entirely by the end of 2011. " And to add: "It is always so easy to spot an American with an inferiority complex because they tend to praise the BBC's coverage of the Iraq War. Those of us suffer through it tend to grasp the reality of how it sold the war."

Yes, all the same players are out selling the treaty the same way they sold the illegal war. It's the propaganda model activiating and self-determining before our very eyes. Ruth's "Press deliberately lying " went up last night and be sure to check it out.

As a friend at the State Dept has already pointed out on the phone this monring, they had surmised the Sunni 'opposition' very well -- it did not exist, it only needed its palms greased. It held out for what it wanted and the State Dept had people working today the same way they did yesterday. The moon was promised for those votes. The moon will not be delivered. It'll be cute to watch the same ones who sold out the people they allegedly represent realize the State Dept screwed them over (in most cases, the State Dept screwed them over -- smart Judases got everything they wanted up front).

Don't feel sorry for them. If they weren't corrupt, they wouldn't have been so willing to grab bribes. Just like if the three 'reporters' for the Times weren't eager to sell the illegal war, they wouldn't have lied so often about the treaty. No guns were put to anyone's head.

The treaty now goes to the presidency council where any of the three members can veto it (the council is made up of Iraq's president and its two vice presidents). The consensus at State is that it will sail right through. They could be wrong; however, they called the Sunni 'objection' pose as the nonsense it was last week.

In the US, there are no plans by the White House to submit the treaty to Congress, despite the Constitution clearly stating that is what happens. To make your voice heard, American Freedom Campaign notes:

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.

the new york times
campbell robertson
alissa j. rubin
stephen farrell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20081126-01
Nov. 26, 2008
Marine, Soldier attacked by SAF
Multi National Force – West PAO
NINAWA PROVINCE, Iraq – One U.S. Marine and an U.S. Military Transition team Soldier were killed in a small-arms fire attack while conducting a humanitarian assistance operation near Biaj Nov. 25.
Two Marines and three civilians were also wounded in the attack.
While in the midst of the unit conducting the mission the unit came under fire by two men, one of whom appeared to be wearing an Iraqi uniform. The Iraqi Security and Coalition forces immediately cordoned off the area.
"The attack appears to have been unprovoked, said Col. Bill Buckner, spokesman for the Multi-National Corps – Iraq. "It is unknown if the attacker was an Iraqi soldier or an insurgent in disguise."
The incident is under a joint investigation.
The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.

The above is today's the US military's announcement of the latest deaths. The announcement brings to 4207 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. The New York Times writes up the above deaths here (and it's credited to "The New York Times," no individual byline).

Let's move from that to the lies of the treaty. Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef's "Dueling interpretations hang over U.S.-Iraq security pact" (Miami Herald) reports:

The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement than the Iraqi government has, U.S. officials said Tuesday - just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote.
These provisions include a ban on the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors.
Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes.

The differing versions were noted in the November 19th Congressional hearing. And better late than never for McClatchy to note at least some of the differences. That's not sarcasm. It could have been noted sooner but look around and note how many have either lied or flaunted ignorance. And for Youssef, especially, it's a big turnaround on this topic.

Reminder 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


Meanwhile Roy Gutman's "Vast U.S. Embassy in Baghdad: A monument to what?" (McClatchy Newspapers) explores the US castle in the Green Zone:

The vast, fortified complex is sterile and austere, not the open door ambiance for which Americans like to be known. Congressional funding didn't cover landscaping, so where gardens and grass should be, there's only dirt. In Iraq's hot, dry climate, it turns to dust, which blows into the eyes of anyone walking through the compound. At night, when sodium lamps illuminate the red brick construction, it has an eerie feel, like a scene out of a sci-fi movie
The compound exudes power, but also fear. It was built during the heaviest phase of fighting for an immense sum – $740 million dollars – with specs set by pessimists who assumed mortars would be fired at it for years. The cafeteria has massive bulletproof glass doors, an indoor gym is visible behind bulletproof glass as is an indoor swimming pool, and there are housing and offices for 1,000.
This colossal complex will shortly replace the current embassy – the Republican Palace built by Saddam Hussein and seized by the conquering U.S. army in 2003. That monument to pomposity, decorated in the gaudy style to which the dictator was accustomed, at least has some architectural touches borrowed from Mesopotamian history. And it will once again receive state visitors, when it is returned to the Iraqi government.
But who will be occupying the new U.S. Embassy complex in 10 years? Will there be new tenants? Will there be buckets out to collect rainwater dripping through the roof, as there were the other day at the Palace? Will grass and bushes ever be planted or will it be left to the wind: a center of Western presence in Iraq or a monument to the still inexplicable decision to come here and assert what some thought to be limitless power.

The US Embassy is a crumbling facade which also makes it an allegory for the illegal war. Yesterday Bully Boy was trying desperately to justify his illegal war of choice built on lies and Al Jazeera notes:

In a speech to around 10,000 US troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on Tuesday, Bush praised those who served for taking part in "the great ideological struggle of our time".
"The war in Iraq is not over. But we're drawing closer to the day when our troops come home," Bush told personnel from the US 101st Airborne Division, who have recently returned from serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"And when they come home, they will come home in victory."

From stupidity to to wisdom, John Ross offers "Obama in Bedlam" (CounterPunch):

I don't buy Barack Obama as the Messiah. I didn't vote for him (I voted for another Afro-American) and I haven't filed an application to join his regime. He ran a duplicitous, multi-million dollar campaign that masqueraded as a social movement and because it was a gimmick and a shuck, will thwart and demoralize the re-creation of real social movement for years to come.
The suckers packed shoulder to shoulder in Grant Park on Election Night were not a movement. 40 years ago, the Left stood in that park and were burning American flags, not waving them - although the reasons were equally specious. Back then, it was the denial of another false Messiah's rightful place on the Democratic Party ticket. We ran a pig for president to underscore our disdain for the electoral process and when Mayor Dailey's cops kidnapped and barbecued our candidate, we turned to yet another Afro-American who was also not the Messiah. In August 1968, the Mayor of Chicago, whose son is now Barack Obama's most trusted political advisor, sent in the real pigs to beat us into the Grant Park grass like so many baby harp seals.
Now that was a social movement…
Eduardo Galeano does not get it. When he tells Amy Goodman that he has high hopes for El Baracko because black slaves once built the White House for which the president-elect is now measuring the drapes, he does not consider that Obama himself is a slave, a slave to Wall Street and General Motors and Big Oil and Big Ethanol, a slave to the War Machine and U.S. Imperialism and Israel, a slave to We're Number One jingoism, avarice, and greed and the American Nightmare, a slave to the free market and free enterprise and free trade and the flimflam of corporate globalization, and most of all, a slave to the Democratic Party puppet masters who now move his strings.
Galeano doesn't seem to recall that Afro-Americans can be mass murderers too. Condi is a killer and Barack's big booster Colin Powell once obligated the United National Security Council to cover up a reproduction of Picasso's "Gernika" before he could lie that contaminated body in the eye about Saddam's make-believe WMDs and jumpstart a war that has now taken a million Iraqi lives. So far. The bloodletting has hardly abated.
We are in garbage time. The adulatory garbage being spewed about the virtues of Barrack Obama are a toxic trick on the peoples of the earth. One glaring recent example: 100,000 marched from sea to shining sea in the U.S. last weekend (Nov. 16th) in support of same sex marriage and no one had the moxie to even mention that Barack Obama does not support same sex marriage.


Stan's latest post is "The good and the bad" and other community posts from last night:

• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Judge yells 'tyrant!' and tyrant collapses

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  robert parry: complete moron

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Rejoice over Florida news (before they take it away!)

  9 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  The day Anita Bryant cried

  9 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  John Ross, Rosa DeLauro

  9 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Miami, Border Patroler Janet, and more

  9 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Norman tells all!

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! NORMAN SEES PEE-PEES EVERYWHERE!

  9 hours ago

Many of those cover the Robert Gates news so I'm not tackling it until today's snapshot.

So what's going on here? There will be a snapshot today. We'll have to fly home and we've got a tight speaking schedule so it may go up after six p.m. EST. There will be a Thursday evening "I Hate The War" entry. There will be morning entries on Thursday and Friday. I'm not sure about the snapshot -- that will depend on how much news there is coming out of Iraq and on Iraq.

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

iraq
jonathan s. landay
nancy a. youssef
adam ashton
roy gutman
john ross

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