Sammy Power Returns

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   WITH CRAZED WAR HAWK SAMMY POWER BACK IN THE NEWS AFTER CRASHING AND BURNING LAST MARCH (SEE PHOTO BELOW), THESE REPORTERS CAUGHT UP WITH HER THIS MORNING TO SEE HOW SHE WAS DOING?     "JUST GREAT," SHE ENTHUSED.  "I KNOW EVERYONE THINKS MY LIFE IS OVER OR I MUST BE SUICIDAL BECAUSE I MARRIED CASS AND, YEAH, HE IS BUTT UGLY, BUT SO AM I.  AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE CHILDREN, THE WORLD WILL BE OKAY. PROBABLY."   ASKED ABOUT HER INFAMOUS MONSTER COMMENT, SAMMY LAUGHED, "IF THAT WASN'T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!  I AM A MONSTER AND I EMBRACE MY MONSTOROUS SELF THESE DAYS.  I AM ITCHING IN MY ENTIRE BEING FOR MORE WAR AND MORE DEATHS.  IT'S LIKE A SEXUAL RUSH.  I FEEL VERY TUESDAY WELD IN PRETTY POSION!"   ASKED ABOUT BEING BACK ON TEAM OBAMA, SAMMY DECLARED, "WOULD CARRIE NATIONS JUST TOSS IN THE TOWEL?  NO AND NEITHER WILL I!  I WIELD A MEAN AXE AND I LAUGH AT ALL THE ASSHOLES IN THE PRESS WHO NEVER REPORTED THAT I LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS INCLUDING REVEALING THAT BARACK'S 'PROMISE' TO WITHDRAW TROOPS WAS JUST WORDS AND INSULTING GORDON BROWN.  DIG IT, I WAS INSULTING HIM ALL OVER LONDON, SAYING THINGS LIKE 'I AM CONFUSED BY WHAT'S HAPPENED TO GORDON BROWN.  I THOUGHT HE WAS IMPRESSIVE.'  I THOUGHT! HA.  I'M SO JOAN COLLINS! NOW BARACK'S BROUGHT ME BACK EVEN AFTER I INSULTED THE LEADER OF ENGLAND!  I ROCK!"   WE THANKED SAMMY FOR SETTING ASIDE HER PLOTS OF KILLING LONG ENOUGH TO SPEAK WITH US AND SHE SAID, "COULD I JUST SAY THAT I HAVE TWO GOALS FOR 2009?  I MEAN IT'S THE END OF YEAR AND PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE RESOLUTIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF.  FIRST UP, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE IN VOGUE FOR A CHANGE AND NOT MEN'S VOGUE.  I KNOW I'M NOT PRETTY OR EVEN PLAIN, BUT I WILL FIRE BOMB THEIR OFFICES IF THEY DO NOT PUT ME ON THE COVER.  SECOND? I REALLY WANT TO FIND THE RIGHT GUY FOR GEORGE CLOONEY.  IT'S REALLY TIME HE CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET AND SETTELED DOWN.  THE WHOLE COUNTRY KNOWS HE'S GAY, KNOWS THAT WAS THE 'JOKE' OF THE PUBLICIZED BET MICHELLE PFEIFFER HAD WITH HIM YEARS AGO, AND GRASPS THAT'S WHY HE REMAINS A 'BACHELOR' THE SAME WAY LIBERACE WAS A 'BACHELOR.'  I JUST WANT GEORGE TO FIND HIM A GUY WHO CAN MAKE HIM HAPPY.  PLEASE QUOTE ME ON THAT."     FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Yesterday, the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement passed the Iraqi Parliament and some form of the treaty was also released in English (finally) by the White House. While the White House issued a fact-free feel-good from the Bully Boy of the United States and the press, always desperate to fit in, copped a few feels of their own, the reaction was not as universal aclaim in Iraq.  Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) reports approximately 9,000 people gathered to protest in Sadr City and another 2,500 in Basra.  AP adds, "Al-Sadr's statement calls for "peaceful public protests" and the display of black banners as a sign of mourning. But it doesn't repeat his threat to unleash militia fighters to attack U.S. forces if they don't leave immediately."   The treaty passed but no seems concerned and you have to wonder who in the US administration (or the press) is paying attention.  The UN warned this month that violence would most likely increase as a result of Parliamentary elections being (finally) scheduled for next year.  Was it really the time to antagonize Iraqis further?  Will the treaty be looked at in a year or  two the same way Paul L. Bremer's decision to de-Baathify the Iraqi government was?  Will it be the failure that people point to and marvel over how the US just had to keep pushing, just had to poke the bear.  Was it worth the anger and the ill will?  No one wants to debate that or acknowledge it.  The press is on their cop-a-feel high.  Take Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) who breathlessly pants the vote was "historic".  Historic? 149 members of Parliament voted for the treaty.  There are 275 members of Parliament.  That's barely over half.  Historic?  Really?  The Scotsman explains the treaty better than any domestic outlet: "On Thursday, Iraqi lawmakers approved a pact allowing US forces to stay in Iraq for three more years."  The domestic press outlets are too busy parroting the White House to note much reality.  AFP explains, "The United States on Thursday hailed the Iraqi parliament's approval of a landmark accord for US troops to leave the country in three years, but a referendum on the deal next year could complicate withdrawal plans for the next US president."  Ignore the referendum, ignore that the majority of Iraqis want the US out now, ignore that the backdoor deals that the US crafted to push the treaty through are not unknown in Iraq . . .  On that last point, Iran's Press TV reports:   "Washington echelons repeatedly threatened to overthrow the Iraqi government if they continued their opposition to the security deal," said Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati. Iraq's al-Morsad reported on Oct. 10 that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had warned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be 'ousted' unless he signed the US-proposed security pact. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has also claimed that the Bush administration had threatened to cut off vital services to Baghdad if it further delayed the accord, saying the threats were akin to 'political blackmail'. "It was really shocking for us…Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing," al-Hashimi said on Oct. 26.   Ignore all of that and ignore that all of this is one big pressure cooker.  It really is just like when Bremer disbanded the Baath Party and the real-time press rushed to hail that too.  Let's drop back to the April 10 Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations hearing chaired by Joe Biden who noted "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat.  We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat? . . . [that the proposed treaty 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: We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."  Senator Russ Feingold agreed noting, "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?"  But the press, reflecting their 'betters' in the administration, rush to ignore those basic facts.  Feingold's question bears repeating, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal?"  Apparently the press isn't concerned but they're not free press, they can't report, they can only reflect the spin coming out of the White House.      None more so than the media crack whore Alissa J. Rubin who joins with Campbell Robertson (New York Times) to pimp one lie after another and, most notoriously, the lie that the treaty "goes into effect on Januray 1, 2009, when the current United Nations mandate that currently governs American troop operations in the country expires."  Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard, Alissa J.  The treaty now goes to the presidency council where the three members may approve it or they may shoot it down (only one vote is required to nix the treaty).  Translation, at this point, nothing goes into effect on January 1, 2009.  Don't get stoned and try to 'report,' Alissa, it only embarrasses yourself, the paper and everyone else.  Who, what, when and where, not predicitions passed off as facts.  She's far from the only cop-a-feel-pimper, but she is the worst.  The Washington Post manages to include (buried deep) the following on the treaty: ". . .  the pact also allows the Iraqi government to negotiate with the United States to extend the presence of U.S. troops if conditions on the ground are not stable. The  Los Angeles Times manages to note: "The pact allows for amendments if both sides agree to them. U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting an extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi forces in charge.  'There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides,' one U.S. official said."  While the Iraqi Parliament has now approved the treaty, the White House thinks they can get away with circumventing the Constitution and refusing to allow the treaty to go before the US Congress.  American Freedom Campaign picks the lack of US Congressional input into the treaty as the abuse of the week: Iraq Parliament to vote on U.S.-Iraq agreement, while Congress has no input During the Bush administration, the power of the executive branch has been greatly expanded. At times, President Bush has treated Congress like an inferior branch of government – and, to be honest, Congress has done very little to demonstrate it minds being treated that way.          Case in point: On November 17, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iraq had reached an agreement setting the terms of the U.S.'s presence in Iraq after the expiration of the UN mandate on December 31. Although the Bush administration is calling this agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a category of international agreement that does not require congressional approval, it is clear that the agreement goes well beyond a traditional SOFA.     Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has no plans to seek congressional approval. What makes this even worse is that under the Iraqi constitution, this kind of agreement must be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. So we are left with a situation in which the Iraqi Parliament is voting on an agreement that will affect the lives of U.S. soldiers, but Congress has no voice at all in the process. And what is Congress doing about this? Very, very little so far…   And while Biden could express frustration April 10th over the treaty and object to it, while Barack Obama could do the same as he was running in the Democratic Party primary for the presidential nomination, while he could show boat and pretend he shared Hillary Clinton's objection to a treaty without Congressional approval (even becoming one of the 13 co-sponsors of the bill she put foward), while Biden and Obama could run in the general election insisting that the treaty must have Congressional approval, that was then.  Every time a Barack wins an election, a Barack loses a spine.  Deborah Haynes (Times of London) shares this today: His transition team will now be poring over every word of the document to see what it will mean for those soldiers who may remain in Iraq for up to three years after the expiry of the UN mandate on December 31. Mr Obama, a lawyer, will be anxious to see that American troops remaining in the country do not fall foul of Iraqi or international law. The treaty was yet another 'present' vote for Barack. He couldn't stand up, he couldn't do a damn thing.  When you've built your own myth around your so-called judgment and the only thing you have to remotely base that claim on is a 2002 speech, you're paralyzed and that's what Barack's rushing to enshrine: a paralyzed presidency.    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Kat's Korner: Labelle's neither 'back' nor 'now'" "Other Items" "Alissa J. Rubin, the paper's media crack whore" "I Hate The War" Mikey Likes It! Murder by Death 8 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude grab bag 8 hours ago Thomas Friedman is a Great Man Shove it up your ass, Carlos Fierro 8 hours ago Like Maria Said Paz Barack and his defenders 8 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) Academics killed during the Iraq War 9 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZ Trashy Samantha Power . . is back 9 hours ago Ruth's Report About Thanksgiving 9 hours ago Trina's Kitchen Potatoe Pancakes in the Kitchen 9 hours ago Cedric's Big Mix Barack sings "Hero" 1 day ago The Daily Jot THIS JUST IN! BARACK CROSS DRESSES AS MARIAH! 1 day ago "The Common Ills" "The Common Ills"

Barack sings "Hero"

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   OUTGOING SENATOR AND INCOMING PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN WHIPPING HIS CENTRIST AND CORPORATIST CREDENTIALS OUT OF HIS PANTS AND WAVING THEM AT THE WORLD DISAPPOINTING MANY INCLUDING SIZE QUEENS NORMAN SOLOMON AND DAVID CORN WHO BOTH COULDN'T BELIEVE IT WAS SO TINY.   ATTEMPTING TO DISTRACT FROM HIS TINY MEAT, BARACK DECLARED TODAY: "BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE VISION FOR CHANGE COMES FROM.  FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT COMES FROM ME."  AN EGO-MANIAC AND A NON-POET.  DIDN'T HE, LIKE MARIAH CAREY A DECADE AGO, TELL US THAT IT COMES FROM YOU?   THIS KIND OF NONSENSE IS NOT SILENCING CRITICISM OF HIS CHOICES WHICH INCLUDE STOCKING HIS CABINET WITH HENRY KISSINGER'S FORMER STROKERS.   RIGHT NOW HE'S AT THE MARIAH EATING HOT DOGS IN CENTRAL PARK IN HIS NIGHTIE PHASE, WE CAN'T WAIT FOR GLITTER: THE FULL MELTDOWN.     FROM THE TCI WIRE TODAY:   "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."       FROM THE TCI WIRE YESTERDAY:   War resister Robin Long was extradited in July.  Last month Gerry Condon (Soldier Say No!) wrote an indepth piece on Long and the movement in Canada:   Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who argued fruitlessly five years ago that Canada should join George Bush's invasion of Iraq, was eager to deliver the first deportation of an Iraq War resister. The order to arrest Robin Long came from the top. It was Harper's insurance policy. If he couldn't deport Glass, he would deport Long. While the Canada Border Services Agency shuttled Robin Long from one prison to another, keeping him isolated from friends and supporters, a last-ditch attempt to stop his deportation was mounted by Vancouver lawyer, Shepherd Moss. A hearing was scheduled in Federal Court in Vancouver for Monday morning, July 14. But Robin Long's luck ran out when his case was assigned to Judge Anne McTavish, the author of damaging decisions against Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the first two GIs to seek refugee status in Canada. Canadian authorities had failed to inform Long of his pending deportation, thus denying him his right to appeal. But Judge McTavish refused to delay Long's deportation. The legal reasons for Corey Glass's were not yet published and could potentially apply to Long. Such was the rush to deport a war resister, however, that Judge McTavish was willing to risk having opposing court decisions on the same issue, within a one week period. "Here, we've got a deserter for you." Robin Long was not allowed to attend his own hearing and he was not informed of its outcome. Instead, on the morning of Tuesday, July 15, Canadian immigration police drove him to Canada's border with the U.S. near Blaine, Washington, and loudly announced to their U.S. counterparts, "Here, we've got a deserter for you." Stephen Harper and the Bush Administration got what they wanted, international headlines trumpeting, "Canada Deports U.S. Deserter." The Canadian people learned about the deportation of Robin Long from sketchy media reports. The Canada Border Services Agency, citing "the Privacy Act," refused to give the media any details. How was the deportation carried out? Where did it occur? Who handed Robin Long over to whom? Where was Long held in Canada? Where was he being held in the U.S.? The Privacy Act, enacted to protect the privacy of individuals, was abused by the Conservative government in order to isolate Robin Long and keep Canadians in the dark. Why didn't the Conservative government want Canadians to know the details of this deportation? The word "deportation" connotes an unfortunate but orderly and lawful procedure. What Canadian and U.S. authorities did to Robin Long was more like a "rendition," an extralegal government-to-government kidnapping supposedly reserved for terror suspects. Canadians will be outraged when they hear the truth. War Resister Assaulted and Threatened in Canadian Jails Robin Long was arrested unlawfully on false grounds and for political reasons. He was held incommunicado. Over a ten-day period, he was transferred to three different Canadian jails. In the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, Long was assaulted twice by a group of prisoners who objected to his dreadlock hairstyle. Although he is short and slight, Long was able to fight off his attackers once, and a guard halted the second assault. But Long decided to cut his hair.   That's the definitive piece on Long and thank you to a mutual friend who first called to ask, "Why are you ignoring Gerry?" and then steered me to that essay which I wasn't aware of.  Gerry Condon ends his essay noting that you can write Robin care of Courage To Resist robinlong@couragetoresist.org and that "You can also contribute to Robin's brig account that he uses to pay for phone calls to friends and family."  And for those wondering if Robin is due to be released before the holidays, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office's Karen Linne explained here August 22nd that he had been sentenced to 15 months and would be credited for "about 40 days" for the time he was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso County prior to the court-martial.   Moving over to US politics, Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) observed last week, "It is time to stop kidding ourselves.  This wasn't a breakthrough year for American women in politics.  It was a brutal one."  With that in mind, we'll note John Ross' election observations via 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.     On the issue of equality, Ruth, Kat and Marcia covered the Florida circuit judge overturning Anita Bryant's ban on gay adoption yesterday.  Elaine noted US House Rep Rosa DeLauro's Congressional work on breast cancer and Mike covered the judge who yelled "tyrant."   Independent journalist David Bacon covers immigration and Obama in a new article at The Nation:     So far, the choice of Janet Napolitano is not encouraging. The Tucson "Operation Streamline" court convenes in her home state every day, and the situation of immigrants in Arizona is worse than almost anywhere else. Napolitano herself has publicly supported most of the worst ideas of the Bush administration, including guest worker programs with no amnesty for the currently undocumented, and brutal enforcement schemes like E-Verify and workplace raids. But Obama does not have to be imprisoned by the failure of Napolitano to imagine a more progressive alternative. In fact, his new administration's need to respond to the economic crisis, and to strengthen the political coalition that won the election, can open new possibilities for a just and fair immigration policy. Economic crisis does not have to pit working people against each other, or lead to the further demonization of immigrants. In fact, there is common ground between immigrants, communities of color, unions, churches, civil rights organizations, and working families. Legalization and immigrant rights can be tied to guaranteeing jobs for anyone who wants to work, and unions to raise wages and win better conditions for everyone in the workplace.   Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).        RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "To the joys of today's Judy Millers, the treaty passes" "Hilarious episode of New Adventures of Old Christine" Trina's Kitchen Comics in the Kitchen 1 hour ago The Common Ills To the joys of today's Judy Millers, the treaty passes 12 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) Chatter post 19 hours ago Mikey Likes It! Holidays should be happy! 19 hours ago Like Maria Said Paz Barely able to stay awake 19 hours ago Thomas Friedman is a Great Man Now I don't believe I wanna see the morning 22 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude spam, treaty and more 1 day ago SICKOFITRADLZ Eat s**t, James Withers 1 day ago Ruth's Report Press deliberately lying 1 day ago Cedric's Big Mix Norman tells all! 1 day ago The Daily Jot THIS JUST IN! NORMAN SEES PEE-PEES EVERYWHERE! 1 day ago "Iraq snapshot" "US military announces the death of a Marine and a Solider" "Iraq's Parliament gears up to vote on the treaty" "The good and the bad" 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

Norman tells all!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   "SOMETIMES, I LIKE TO LOOK AT HIM AND PINCH MY NIPPLES."   THESE REPORTERS WERE SPEAKING WITH ONE-TIME MEDIA CRITIC NORMAN SOLOMON WHO, AS HE PUT IT, "GAVE UP THE GOOD LIFE FOR HIM" AND BECAME A FAN CLUB PRESIDENT.  FOR WHO?  "HIM."  BARAACK OBAMA.   "SOMETIMES, I LIKE TO LOOK AT HIM AND TWIST MY NIPPLES," NORMAN ADDED BREATHLESSLY.    "THIS ONE TIME, AT A FREE PRESS OR INDYMEDIA CONFERENCE, ME AND BILL MOYERS HAD A STROKE OFF.  THE ONE WHO NUTTED FIRST LOVED BARACK THE MOST.  I WON!  FOR AN ELDERLY MAN, BILL MOYERS HAS A LOT OF STAMINA!"   WE ACTUALLY WERE NOT THERE TO GET THE LATEST PANHANDLE MEDIA CONFIDENTIAL.    WE HAD WANTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS LATEST FLUFF FOR BARACK AND ESPECIALLY WHEN HE WROTE OF BARACK'S "ECONOMIC TEAM," "I WANT TO MEET THESE GUYS."    GUYS, NORMAN?   GUYS?  CHRISTINA D. ROMER (DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS) IS A GUY?  MELODY C. BARNES (DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL) IS A GUY?  HEATHER A. HIGGINBOTTOM (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL) IS A GUY?   "I CAN'T HELP IT!" WHINED NORMAN HOPPING FROM FOOT TO FOOT, "SINCE BARACK CAME INTO MY LIFE, I SEE COCK EVERYWHERE.  HIS MAGIC WAND IS ALWAYS ON MYIND, HIS MAGIC WAND IS ALWAYS ON MY MIND.  SO WHEN I LOOK AT THESE GIRLS YOU NAME, I AUTOMATICALLY PICTURE THEM WITH PENISES.  WHAT'S SO STRANGE ABOUT THAT?"     FROM THE TCI WIRE:   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       RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "US military announces the death of another solider" "The Times and that ever changing byline" "heroes" "They were not 'pie fights'" "The fools and the liars" "Scapegoating the Clintons to let Barack off da hook" "Transportation" "Bob Avakian and other things" "Isaiah, We Are Not Your Soldiers, Third" "Norman discovers his girlish side" "THIS JUST IN! NORMY LOVES BARACK!" "The Common Ills" "The Common Ills"

Norman discovers his girlish side

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   AND STILL THEY GATHER.   THE CULT OF ST. BARACK MET FRIDAY AND BARACK DELEGATE AND WOULD-BE- MRS.-OBAMA NORMAN SOLOMON CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.   HE ISSUED SCRATCHING POSTS FOR ONE AND ALL THEN STRIPPED DOWN TO HIS G-STRING TO DO "MY OBAMA LOVE THANG, YA'LL!  HEE-EE-AAAAY-AAA-AYY!"   NORMAN SOLOMON EXPLAINED THAT BILL CLINTON AND HILLARY CLINTON WOULD BE TRASHED EVERY DAY BECAUSE "IF WE DON'T, PEOPLE MIGHT WONDER IF WE WERE AS SCARED AS WE LOOKED."   TRASHING THE CLINTONS ALLOWED THEM TO IGNORE BARACK, THE ONE WHO IS PRESIDENT.    "IT'LL WORK.  IT WORKS IF YOU JERK IT!" HOLLERED NORMAN TO LOUD APPROVAL.   ASKED ABOUT HIS C.D.S. BY THESE REPORTERS, SOLOMON MISHEARD AND THOUGHT WE SAID F.D.S.: "OH I'VE USED A SPRAY SINCE BARACK 1ST BROUGHT OUT THE WOMAN IN ME.  I HOPE TO BE AT THE INAUGURATION AND I PLAN TO SING 'THE WOMAN IN ME' TO BARACK.  I SEE MYSELF AS LIKE MARILYN MONROE BUT MY BREASTS AREN'T AS FIRM, I'M NOT AS FAMOUS AND NO 1 WANTS TO SLEEP WITH ME.  BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE JUST ALIKE!  MARILYN WAS AN ORPHAN, YOU KNOW, AND I FELT ALONE IN THIS WORLD UNTIL BARACK FOUND ME."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   When not blustering in international meet-ups, the administration blusters and bullies with their client-state/puppet government in Baghdad.  Asked at the US State Dept today when the vote on the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Of Agreement might take place, spokesperson Sean McCormack declared, "I don't know.  Talk to the Iraqis about it, talk to the Speaker of their Parliament.  I think they've -- I've seen various news reports about later this week. We'll see."  The vote was supposed to take place today; however, AP reported that the Parliament vote on the treaty, scheduled for Monday, has been pushed back to Wednesday and they noted, "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."  However, Alissa J. Rubin and Alan Cowell (New York Times) see that date as aspirational, not concrete, and state the vote "may come this week".  Aspirational like the so-called 'hard dates' in the treaty.  One person asking the hard questions is Simon Assaf (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) who writes of the treaty:   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.     Meanwhile Iraqi legislatures have noticed another flaw in the treaty: It does not protect Iraqi assets from seizures to collect on past debts.  A rather serious omission but James Glanz and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) are too busy yucking it up in all shades of xenophobia to take the issue seriously.  Those wacky Iraqi MPs, they've found another problemw ith the treaty!  Ha ha ha, what more do they want!!!!!  That is the attitude the 'reporters' display while forgetting to inform 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? Yes, it now turns puppet Nouri al-Maliki is willing to go to the United Nations . . . for that one aspect and only for that.  Saturday, he sent flunkies out to hold a press conference.  Campbell Robertson and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) explained that the thrust was a renewal of the UN mandate just wasn't possible, it just wasn't.  Why?  No one bothers to say.  They do bother to repeat the lie that all US troops leave Iraq in 2011.  No.  If the US maintains an embassy in Iraq, US soldiers will remain there as they do at every other embassy the US has.  The contract is for 2009.  After the first year, anything can be modified or the contract itself can be cancelled.  And that point was confirmed by Adam Ashton who has been reporting for McClatchy Newspapers.  Over the weekend, at The Modesto Bee, Ashton wrote a piece on a variety of topics and included that "[t]wo senior U.S. government officials" explained their assessment of the treaty and whether or not it meant a withdrawal of all US service members by the end of 2011, and he was informed that for the US to stay after 2011, "the pact would have to be renegotiated for foreign soldiers and contractors to stay."  What?????  No, "Of course it means all out in 2011!"  That's what the press keeps reporting even though it's not true.  The truth is the treaty only covers 2009.  Everything else can be cancelled or modified.  Jeremy R. Hammond (Information Clearing House) is one of the few actually examining the treaty:    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.   Yesterday the puppet held his own press conference.  Reuters reports he said his country would not ask for an extension of the United Nations mandate. Except that we now know he will.  Not for the entire issues at stake but for the one issue of protecting Iraqi assets.  Apparently, al-Maliki's hoping to whip through the United Nations by getting into the Express Checkout Lane.  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports on al-Maliki's efforts to consolidate his power and how the treaty might help him do that even more.  Back when he was just a senator and chaired the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden could speak of those dangers freely.  Now he's vice president-elect and muzzled.  So we'll drop back to the  April 10th snapshot to note: 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."   [Semi-related, Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) reports on who is on the tax payer dime in Iraq  thug wise.]  While the Iraqi Parliament gears up on a vote, remember that the White House thinks they can circumvent the Constitution and ignore the Congress.  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           RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "al-Maliki's consolidation" "NYT laughs at Iraqis" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart" "And the war drags on . . ." "The One About That One Year Treaty . . ." "The demonstration" 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 "Boo-hoos in Barack's fan club" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S BOOSTERS NEED A BOOSTER CHAIR! "