Belle of the ball

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   TOMORROW BARACK HOLDS HIS BIG HEALTH CARE GET TOGETHER.  HE SPOKE TO THESE REPORTERS ABOUT IT TONIGHT EXPLAINING THAT HE HAD "INVITED EVERYONE!"  WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED OUT THAT NO ONE WILL BE PRESENT WHO ADVOCATES FOR SINGLE PAYER, BARACK SAID, "EVERYONE WHO MATTERS!"   BARACK THEN ENCOURAGED THESE REPORTERS TO MINGLE AND ENJOY THE PARTY HE'D THROWN FOR REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS.  PINCHING HIS CHEECKS TO MAKE THEM EXTRA ROSY, HE EXCLAIMED, "I'M THE HOSTESS WITH THE MOSTESS!"   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   This morning  Thomas E. Ricks appeared on NPR's Morning Edition to discuss his new book The Gamble with Steve Inskeep:    Steve Inskeep: If you think the war in Iraq is a disaster and the US cannot leave soon enough, Ricks offers you no comfort.  If you think the surge of troops led to victory, Ricks will not comfort you either.  As we're about to hear, his book presents the war very differently than it looks in the headlines.  If you don't mind, I'd like to begin at the end.   Thomas E. Ricks:  Sure.   Steve Inskeep: You have a much noted quote at the end of the book which is?   Thomas E. Ricks: "The events for which this war will be remembered have not yet happened."   Steve Inskeep: What does that mean?   Thomas E. Ricks: It's actually a thought that came from Ambassador Ryan Crocker, top diplomat out in Iraq, who said it to me first in January 2008 and then when I did my last interview with him in November.  The prism through which we view this war has not yet been built.  We don't know how this thing comes out, so we don't know how to view this.      Steve Inskeep: When I hear that quote the first thing that comes to my head is that after almost six years, it's just beginning?   Thomas E. Ricks: I think we may just be half-way through this war.  I know President Obama thinks he's going to get all troops out by the end of 2011.  I don't know anybody in Baghdad who thinks that's going to happen.  I think Iraq is going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq.  The plan they had in Baghdad last summer was about 35,000 troops to be there for several years.  General [Ray] Odierno says in the book that he would like to see 35,000 troops there in the year 2015 and that would be well into what is Obama's second term.  The point is as long as we have American troops in Iraq -- no matter what you call them -- you can call them 'noncombat' troops, you can call them Mousekateers -- they're going to be fighting and dying -- some of them.   Steve Inskeep: I want to explore the implications of that but first to understand why the military people you're talking with would think this way?  Because it's been observed from Washington and, in fact, it's observed in your book that the so-called surge of troops was in many ways successful, the amount of violence is down dramatically in Iraq, their electing people, things are happening in Iraq, why should we not feel that the war has been concluded -- whether you want to say victory or not, that it's over?   Thomas E. Ricks: The surge worked tacticly.  It improved security enormously but it didn't succeed strategically, politically.  And that was its larger goal.  What you see in Iraq is a lot of people who think Obama by talking about getting out of Iraq quickly is not departing from Bush but repeating Bush's mistake.  I think Bush's core mistake in many ways was persistant, unwarranted optimism about Iraq.  The original US war plan was to be down to 30,000 troops by September 2003 and so by Obama saying August 2010 is very much on that same path I think.  Steve Inskeep: I think that some people listening to this may be trying to figure out where you're standing politically here and I have a feeling it's going to be difficult for people to figure out because you have written quite critically of the war, uhm, but you're saying the president is not right in trying to get out.   Thomas E. Ricks:  I don't know if there's a political label to be put on it.  I think you can call it uncomfortable more than anything else.  I do think this war was the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy.  I think it's a tragedy.  I think that George Bush's mistakes are something we're going to be paying for for decades.  We don't yet understand how big a mistake this is.  And I think that because it was such a tragic mistake, everything that flows from it is the fruit of the poison tree.  So the question is what is the least bad solution and I think staying in Iraq with a smaller force probably is that answer.   That's a transcript of almost the first half.  The link is audio only but it does contain an excerpt from the book.  Ashley Smith (CounterPunch) offers a strong critique of the book, highlighting what he sees as its weaknesses and strengths and we're noting this from the opening:   Obama extended his promised timeframe for withdrawing "combat troops" to 19 months. But even more telling is the aspect of Obama's policy that remained vague during the campaign--plans for a "residual force" of up to 50,000 soldiers to remain in Iraq through at least 2011. This isn't a plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but to continue it in another form. "You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history." Obama's policy on Iraq has been shaped by a new consensus that has developed among the U.S. political establishment over the past year and a half. It holds that the surge of U.S. troops ordered by George W. Bush in 2007 stabilized the country, the war is now winding down, and the U.S. occupation will soon come to an end. This is all an illusion--and a new book by Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post journalist and author of Fiasco, about the disaster of the U.S. invasion and the early years of the occupation, shows why, even if Ricks himself doesn't draw all those conclusions.   That's not really a critique of the book! Use the link.  We need truth tellers and Ashley is one.  At a time when so many are Cultist, we need that more than the critique.  (It's an important critique, I'm not dismissing it.  I'm noting that there are too may liars and cheerleaders and water boys for Barack.)  We need some intelligence as well and there's damn little to be found on Democracy Now! where we had Jeremy Scahill trying to reinvent history and Larry Korb either lying outright or senile.  (We have never praised Korb and we would never do so.)    Korb repeats the lie that the Iraqi government forced something off on the US with the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement.  LIE.  The White House got what they wanted.  If they had not, they would not have signed it.  The White House held all the cards as everyone in Congress knew -- even those objecting to the treaty (which had no approval from the US Congress).  Nouri couldn't survive a day in Iraq without the support of the US.  Anything that the White House didn't want in, they could nix and threaten to walk away.  Iraq's military remains dysfunctional and without a military (currently the US military) propping him up, al-Maliki's head would most likely be on a stick in the center of Baghdad.  He had no position of power and how insane and offensive for Korb (and others, toss in Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn) to pretend otherwise.  Iraq is an occupied country, occupied by the US.  Quit providing cover for the occupation -- and all the humilitation that entails -- by lying.    Larry Korb: "The other [thing to remember] is the Iraqi people get to vote this summer on a referendum about whether they want to support the Status of Forces Agreement.  If they decide not to, all the forces have to be out withing a year."  Really?  Show me where the hell that is in the agreement?  Let me help the idiot Larry Korb, you would go to Article 30 of the SOFA.  Now, granted, you can't do that very easily because Barack's wiped it off the White House website.  I wasn't joking or using hyperbole when I said Barack's people had trashed the White House website.  They trashed it. Documents that were historical and significant -- and highly significant if charges were brought against George W. Bush -- are gone, pulled from the public record.  We have a copy of the treaty here.  This is the US version, released by the White House.  Article 30 covers how the contract can be terminated.  Larry Korb, find where it says that the treaty requires the approval of the Iraqi people?  It doesn't say that.  You add something to a contract, you put it into the contract or you didn't add it.  That's basic contract law and if you don't know the law don't try to discuss it. The Parliament voted to approve the treaty.  The presidency council signed off on it.  It can be broken -- as outlined in Article 30 -- at any point.  But there's no guarantee that a vote by the people (which isn't required by the treaty or by Iraq's Constitution) will result in the treaty being broken.  And who's paying for that vote, Larry?  Voting costs money.   al-Maliki's whining about shortfalls.  Who is paying for national election in July?  And how long before they have to start getting ready for such a vote?  The KRG's holding provincial elections in May and they're already in that process.     We could pick through Larry's falsehoods bit by bit but he's as uninformed as he is boring so we'll wrap up with him on this: "The final thing is, come 1 July, our forces are out of the cities, they're out of the towns.  They're basically back on their bases."  Really?  Because that's allegedly a "goal" now.  And it taking place is disputed by US commanders on the ground in Iraq.  Now I realize that the treaty passed the Parliament on Thanksgiving Day and that Panhandle Media is a bunch of rejects who couldn't work in real media because they have sloppy work habits (to put it mildly) but at some point, when Thanksgiving is over, you either read the contract or you don't.  And if you don't, you don't jawbone about it.  We covered it, when it passed the Parliament.  Not the day after or the next week. November 27, 2008 snapshot has it.  We went through it bit by bit.  And we did it with that version, released by the White House, because it was already known -- and US Congressional testimony had repeatedly made this point clear -- that the Iraqis were given another draft of it, a different one, weeks earlier.  That wasn't the official draft.  It is the draft many have 'analyzed.'  A draft is meaningless if a subsequent version replaces it.  When the final draft came along, all the previous ones could be trashed.   So we're done with Larry Korb and if the CAP had any self-respect, they'd be done with him as well.  Which brings us to Jeremy Scahill.  Jeremy, you make it so hard to applaud when you can't stop lying.  Jeremy's analysis is stronger than Larry's.  But he's not content with that, he has to reinvent history.  Specifically, he has to reinvent his own actions.  We're not playing that game Jeremy.  You want to earn some respect, earn it. You're not going to lie your way to it and have us sit silent.  Here's Jeremey, disgracing himself by lying:   But the fact that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer all acted like astonished that there's going to be 35,000 to 50,000 troops in a residual capacity in Iraq and were criticizing this, I mean, this is a classic example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy and what's been wrong with this party for a long time. And that is that when it actually mattered, when Pelosi or Reid could have said to candidate Obama, "Back off that residual force," as many activists were calling for, they were deafeningly silent.   Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should have been calling for Barack to do that?  Really?  I kind of think so-called 'independent' journalists should have been holding Barack accountable but we didn't see that, did we, Jeremy?  We saw you attack Hillary for proposing that all mercenaries be banned from Iraq.  We saw you excuse away Barack's refusal to make the same call Hillary did.  Hillary did what you wanted and you attacked her, and you ripped her apart and, in your TV work, you had that smug little grin on your face while you did it.  You lied for Barack and you covered for him and you did so, tell the people, because Samantha Power was returning your phone calls and you felt included.  You were part of something!  Samantha was an advisor to Barack!  And she would take your calls!  Well, she'd return them.  She was too busy to actually take your calls.  But, whatever, you and Amy were so thrilled and you both pimped her as the next Secretary of State.  Here's more reinvention from Jerry Scahill:   We were at the Democratic convention, Amy, walking around, trying to find anyone to criticize that aspect of the Obama policy, and not even antiwar Democrats, who were firmly against the war from the beginning, would dissent from the policy positions of the dear leader. This is cult activity, when you refuse to go after someone to try to criticize their policies when it matters and then later act like you've been hoodwinked. They knew exactly what was going on.   Really?  Because Amy Goodman had a woman on who was attempting to criticize Barack. Do you remember what happened, Jeremy?  Amy cut her off repeatedly.  Amy wouldn't let Sacha Millstone speak and Amy even flat out lied.  Amy accused the woman of saying she'd vote for John McCain when the woman said no such thing.  It was Sacha, not Amy, who had to point out that America's choices are not limited to Barack or John McCain.  Amy carried Barack's water in the same way you're accusing the Democrats of doing.  No one in Denver -- that's where the convention was -- to speak out!!!!  Really.  Well maybe you and Amy should have covered the rally Ralph Nader and others (Rosa Clemente, the Green Party's vice presidential nominee spoke at it) held during the DNC, right there in Denver.  But you didn't cover that.  P.S. Samantha laughed at you.  She bragged to the campaign about her "seduction" (that was the term) of you.  (And for those late to the party, she didn't sleep with him nor was she implying she did.  She seduced with the prospect of access to the campaign.)  She turned you into a joke at the highest levels of Barack's campaign.  Excuse me, you allowed her to turn you into a joke.  Don't show up all this time after and think you can rewrite history.  It's not that easy.   Jeremy tosses around Bob Somerby's term ("Dear leader") today and offers a strong critique of Barack's craven 'plan.'  Had he stuck to that, we might have let him slide.  But when he tries to push the responsibility for his own misdeeds off on others? We're not in the mood to play that game.  Without Jeremy covering for him, Barack might not be where he is now.  Own it.   Those who want to own their part in ending the illegal war can take part in an action this month led by   The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)      To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.       RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Iraq realities" "Iraq and the unspeakables" "Huey" "It was probably supposed to be a secret" "iraq, iran, england" "The useless F.C.C." "Isaiah, Virign Megastore" "Huey sends Distraction packing" "I can't draw, Alan Gomez can't report" "Isaiah, Debra Sweet" "AP gets creative with figures for violence" "Barack's plan to solve the economy" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK HAS PLAN!"

Barack's plan to solve the economy

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARACK OBAMA MET WITH THESE REPORTERS TODAY TO DISCUSS HIS LATEST NOMINEE WITH A TAX SCANDAL, RON THE FAILURE KIRK.   YES, BARACK ADMITTED, RON OWES BACK TAXES BUT HE HAS PROMISED HE WILL FINALLY PAY THEM.    IT WAS THEN THAT BARACK REVEALED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN A BLUNDER ON HIS PART, HE HAS INTENTIONALLY SELECTED TAX CHEATS TO NOMINATE.   WHY?   "IT'S PART OF MY EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE ALL AMERICANS PAY THEIR TAXES," BARACK DECLARED.  "PEOPLE LIKE TIMMY GIETHNER AND TOMMY DACSCHLE AND EVEN RONNIE KIRK DON'T PAY TAXES BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR AMERICA.  BUT BY MY NAMING THEM AS NOMINEES, THEY ARE FORCED TO PAY THE TAXES THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY IGNORED.  IT'S ALL PART OF MY MASTER PLAN TO SOLVE THE ECONOMIC CRISIS."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-North Soldier died from injuries sustained during an indirect fire attack in Mosul, Iraq, Mar. 3.  The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the U.S. Department of Defense."  The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4255.   The deaths continue to mount because the illegal war continues and that's because a War Hawk is in the White House.  That last one was George W. Bush, the current one is Barack H. Obama.  Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) observes:     In the last two weeks of February, President Barack Obama -- upon whom so many peace supporters had counted to change Washington's commitment to wars and militarism -- delivered these three blows to his antiwar constituency: 1. By ordering 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan Feb. 17, President Obama is continuing and expanding George W. Bush's war. It's Obama's war now, and it's getting much bigger. 2. By declaring Feb. 27 that up to 50,000 U.S. soldiers would remain in Iraq after "combat brigades" departed, President Obama is continuing the war in a country that remains a tragic victim of the Bush Administration's aggression and which has taken the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians and has made refugees of 4.5 million people. 3. By announcing Feb. 26 that his projected 2010 Pentagon budget was to be even higher than budgets sought by the Bush Administration, President Obama was signaling that his commitment to the U.S. bloated war machine -- even at a time of serious economic recession -- was not to be questioned. Whether or not Obama's actions will revive the peace movement is another matter. Antiwar activism during the election year was minimal. And now that a Democrat is in the White House it may be further reduced, since most peace backers voted for Obama. The movement's strength will be tested at the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war March 21.   The actions are being led by   The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)    To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   In his Dissident Voice article, Jack A. Smith goes on to cite two polls which may or may not be enough to determine public sentiment but what is known is that when gatekeepers grab the rulers and slap the wrists of the people, it takes longer for the ball to get rolling.  For example, in August 2001, Bully Boy Bush was a joke.  Then came 9-11 and, with it,  the self-appointed guardians of discousre.  They're out in full force again and this time their names include Tom Hayden.  They can try to slow the awakening that's coming, but that's all their cheerleading and garbage will do, slow the awakening.  Smith lists multiple cowards and also notes a recent column, Justin Ramondo's "The Silence of the Liberals" (Anti-war.com; this is the column Marcia highlighted last week): Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong? Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces." In short: we aren't leaving. The embarrassing, aging tool Tom Hayden showed up yesterday to tell the world he still loves Barack.  And that's fine, Tom-Tom but don't confuse your love and lust with actual activism.  As we noted at Third on Sunday:   So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader of -- the peace movement.                   Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack.                     And we again remind you . . .               Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'        Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start        That won't get you into his heart               The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.   Who knew that in 2009, the tired and deceitful 'leaders' would attempt to pass drooling off as 'action'?  ("Wishin' And Hopin'" written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach, most famously sung by Dusty Springfield.)  While Tom Hayden rushes around with his tongue out and his hands down his pants, Alan Bjerga (Bloomberg News) reports not everyone's thinking with their loins, George McGovern's actually speaking out:   McGovern, 86, said he supports Obama's plan to increase spending to stimulate the U.S. economy, while faulting the president for his willingness to keep troops in Iraq.    Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 makes him "exactly the same" as former President George W. Bush in his conduct of the war and continues to spend money needed for economic recovery.       "What's the change?" McGovern said. "Guys are still dying over there. Guys are coming home with mental and emotional problems that will linger on for years."     As Ruth observed last night, "Poor Tom Hayden. George McGovern could not have chosen a worse time to speak out for Tom Hayden. Mr. Hayden is spit polishing Barack's knob today as per usual. (My grandson Jayson will love that I have included that phrase in the previous sentence.) And along comes George McGovern who is everything Mr. Hayden wanted to be but never managed to pull off. Poor Tom Hayden. Believe your daddy just sent you to your room without dinner."  Or as Rebecca put it, "tom hayden, what an embarrassment.  and he looks all the more childish when mcgovern can do what hayden won't. mcgovern endorsed barack. he didn't just endorse barack, he took back his endorsement of hillary to endorse barack. and here mcgovern is calling out barack while tom hayden wonders whether to let barack go balls deep or not."   The country's got more than a bunch of aging bobby soxers like Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden, et al getting all wet-pantied for Barack.  In the real world Barack's draw down has resulted in some showing a spine.   John Yaukey (Gannet via Honlulu Advertiser) reports that US House Rep Neil Abercrombie told CNN that US forces on the ground in Iraq need to "be leaving faster than President Obama has ordered" and the quote is, "I think it can be done faster." Yaukey observes, "Abercrombie's comments signal what could become a growing rift between some Democrats and Obama on policy in Iraq." Abercrombie also questioned Barack's claim that the 'surge' was a success stating, "we Bribed people. We paid people not to kill us." Abercrombie is not lying. He is not being inflamatory. He is repeating what US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Petreaus repeatedly told Congress in the days of testimony back at the start of April. (Here, we called Petreaus and Crocker's 'logic' the fork-over-the-lunch-money-so-no-one-gets-beat-up policy.) On the same topic, Mark Johnson, Ryan Beckwith and Steven Thomma (McClatchy Newspapers) report on some of the Democrats speaking out including US House Rep Lynn Woolsey ("I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq. This is unacceptable.") and US House Rep Dennis Kucinich ("You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history."). Senator Russ Feingold is also quoted but that's the statment we quoted three times last week.   With another perspective on the Iraq War, Endy M. Bayuni (Washington Post's Post Global) offers: It took years for Americans to realize that it was a war they could not win. Nixon and Kissinger agonized over whether to cut the country's losses and leave Vietnam, or stay and maintain America's integrity, pride and international standing. In the end, it was public opinion in America that forced the United States government to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. It was not so much the thought of the Vietnamese death toll as the rising death toll of young Americans drafted into the military that turned the public opinion against its own government. Americans suffered the humiliation of a war defeat as it never had before. One would expect that that trauma and scar would have been enough to prevent the United States from launching another war in a foreign land. Bush and Cheney did not read history well, and they took America to another war some 40 years later, which is where we are today: a war America cannot win, and an ethnic war just waiting to erupt as soon as American troops pull out. The real question to ask is not whether the United States should send the soldiers back if ethnic strife returns in Iraq. The problem of Iraq is for the Iraqis to solve, and for its immediate neighbors to help. Unless Americans are still thinking of controlling Iraq's oil, they really have no business meddling in Iraqi politics.   Bayuni is the chief editor of The Jakarta Post.   And in this age of Barack the War Hawk, the US military breathlessly announces: "A team of Soldiers from Alpha Troop, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, made history Feb. 23 when the unmanned aerial vehicle they were operating became the first armed Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial system to fire missiles in combat."  Staff Sgt. Jerry Rhoades is quoted stating, "We neutralized both targets" and those targets included "insurgents."   What a proud moment for Barack.  Some presidents can just hope for creating long lasting global tensions like a cold war but Barack can take pride in the fact that more ways of death destruction are being discovered on his watch.   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Shutting Down The Domestic Arts Czar" "Iran and Iraq increase ties" "The failures of the Tom Haydens" "CBS says US citizens "carried" by the military" "The difference between Tom Hayden and a turd" "suck on it, tom hayden" "Comics and Iraq" "Comics and music" "Comics, Iraq" "Luke Cage, Sunday comics, more" "The Charm Offensive" "Comics and Oprah" "Comics and Chris Hedges and Third" "Barack and his cabinet of tax cheats" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S LATEST TAX CHEAT!"

Barack and his cabinet of tax cheats

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   IF BARACK REALLY CARED ABOUT FIXING THE ECONOMY, HOW COME HE KEEPS NOMINATING LOSERS WHO CAN'T PAY THEIR TAXES.   RON KIRK IS NOMINEE NUMBER FOUR WHO OWES BACK TAXES, $10,000.   RON KIRK IS ANTI-LABOR AND DID ASSORTED TRICKS WITH THE PENSION PLAN WHEN HE WAS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.  HE RESIGNED HIS POST TO RUN FOR THE U.S. SENATE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A D.L.C. CANDIDATE.   KIRK IS THE REASON JOHN CORNYN IS IN THE SENATE.    BY THE WAY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA IS DENSELY POPULATED AND A NATURAL AREA FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, RON KIRK REFUSED TO RUN ADVERTISEMENTS THERE.  HE BASICALLY THREW AWAY THE ELECTION AND HE GAVE HIS 'IT'S FUN JUST TO RUN' SPEECH BEFORE ALL THE VOTES WERE COUNTED AND WHILE TONY SANCHEZ, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, WAS FIGHTING TO HAVE ALL THE VOTES COUNTED.    TRANSLATION, RON KIRK'S A LOSER.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Friday Barack Obama spoke at Camp Lejeune.  The spin was his decision to go from a 16-month 'withdrawal' to a 19 one was no surprise and he had always, always, always said he would listen to commanders on the ground.  No.  That's a lie. Sunday, Ava and my "TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff," covered the exchange between ABC's Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during the April 16, 2008 debate. But anyone who followed the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidential nomination knows the way it worked: Hillary gave an answer and then Barack tried to make it his own.  So today we'll start by noting Hillary's answer.  And you should notice that when Charlie Gibson moves over to Barack, he is clearing asking Barack if he is giving "the same rock-hard plegde" that Hillary just gave.  From the transcript:   GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director of your campaign, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call recently was asked, is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month, whatever the realities on the ground?   And Wolfson said, I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it. The answer is, yes. So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?   CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president, as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goal posts when it comes to Iraq. And I am convinced that it is in America's best interests, it is in the best interests of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interests of Iraq that upon taking office I will ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days.  I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner because, obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment, is dangerous. I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States.  Because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdrawal that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years. I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq.  But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.   GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?   CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios.  But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing, as well, is there -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world.  It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have.  There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world.  And there are other problems that we have failed to address.  So the bottom line for me is: We don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq.  The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to re-assert our leadership and our moral authority in the world.  And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.    GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."  So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?   OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."  Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.  Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.  Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.   The buck does stop with Barack Obama who is now the president of the United States and he told the American people in the debate last April that he would stick to a 16-month withdrawal and that was the "mission."  He would listen to the military commanders about how to implement the "mission," but the civilian command was the one responsible for setting the mission.  He mocked Bully Boy Bush for falling back on "I'm just taking cues from General Peteraeus."  And yet, Friday, when Barack sold his broken promise, he pushed the blame for it off on the military commanders.  The buck stops with Barack Obama.  He told the American people one thing in April and did another thing Friday.  That's called "lying."   A lot of people believe that his announcement of a draw down means that the approximately 144,000 (or 142,000) troops in Iraq will begin leaving Iraq at a steady pace.  That is not the case.  For this year, the expectation is that it will drop 10,000 -- to either 134,000 or 132,000 -- and no more.  January 2010, a 'draw down' is expected to begin.  If nothing changes, of course, and something always changes.  ABC News' Martha Raddatz explained this on Friday's Washington Week:   Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says -- Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen. Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe. Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.   Note that as this is dicated,  Washington Week has streaming video up of Friday's show but has not yet posted the transcript.  Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) evaluates Barack's speech today and offers, "The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama's Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out. . . . What's more, the planned troop reductions won't really happen in a big way until sometime in 2010, so Iraq can get through its national elections. (And a memo to everyone who is counting on the SOFA to bail us out of Iraq: Guys, that was about getting Iraq through 2009, not about what happens in 2011.)" He could have been directing the parenthetical to Phyllis Bennis (but he wasn't) who showed up last week so uninformed that The Third Estate Sunday Review awarded her a Katrina.  (Ava and I were working on our TV pieces, we didn't help write the Katrina article.)  Phyllis repeats the lie Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn's been pimping that the White House was forced to sign that treaty. (If link to Phyllis article doesn't work, it's because you have to be a ZNet sustainer to see it.)  The Third gang takes Phyllis to school, "Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack. The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution. . . .   Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality."  Phyllis also foolishly appears to have no idea on when (some) US troops might start leaving.  When she grasps that only 10,000 tops will leave in the ten months left in this year -- and maybe grasps that will put the number at around the same number before Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' -- she may feel that "three months" or one day more matters.  Right now, she's worthless.  Sorry, Phyllis, that's the reality.  Chris Hedges (World Can't Wait) never saw himself as Barack's handmaiden which is why he can speak the truth so many others silence:   Barack Obama has shown that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference in 19 months. Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? Will Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater (which recently changed its name to Xe), all of whom have made fortunes off the war, pack up and go home? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil? The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. Lies and deception, which launched the war in the first place, are being employed by Democrats to maintain it. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East. Add to this Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and even his most purblind supporters will have to admit the new president is as intent on maintaining American empire as the old.   USA Today offers the editorial "Obama declares end to U.S. presence in Iraq -- sort of:"   Despite Obama's certitude, the best answer is: maybe. Yes, the war is winding down, and Iraq is far calmer than it was two years ago. But the situation remains fluid, and Obama's commitment to get out is part goal, part guessing game. The president's bid to fulfill the promise he made on the campaign trail -- to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office -- always came with a big asterisk. He would leave 35,000 to 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq well beyond that promised drawdown period, now extended from 16 to 19 months. That's about a third of the 142,000 troops there now. What's more, the drawdown will be back-loaded, with troops leaving only slowly until after national elections this December.    And when would those "non-combat" troops come home? Under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, by the end of 2011. Even that isn't set in concrete, however. "If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement ... negotiated with President Obama and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on Meet the Press.   At the New York Times, Emily S. Rubb covers the same Meet the Press apperance USA Today only mentions but somehow Rubb forgets to include the pertinent section.  Intent on offering a feel-good experience, Rubb ignores that Gates repeated what he'd emphasized on Friday: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011.  It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011.  So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011."  And could the US remain in Iraq after 2011, Secretary Gates?   "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see.  I mean, it's a hypothetical.  The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point.  So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative.  I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that.  But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point."  Back to Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript to Gates' segment here) where Gates admitted that, yes, troops could be sent back in.  (The Times wasn't interested in that despite the fact that their own Michael Gordon pressed Barack on that point in November of 2007 and Barack admitted that was the case.)  At the Washington Post's Post Global Rami G. Khouri offers this opinion on troops going back in after some being leaving, "Absolutely not. American troops should leave Iraq and stay out. If ethnic strife flares up again in Iraq beyond its current levels, it will probably be due to three possible causes: lingering resentments and active revenge for the abuses of the Baathist regime; destructive forces unleashed by the American-led invasion that removed the entire state structure; or, meddling by external forces from neighboring countries. A return of American forces would not resolve any of those issues or lower their intensity, but would only exacerbate them."  Meanwhile, link provided for laughter, Tom Hayden pretends he's of some use to the world and wants to insist that Thomas E. Ricks is wrong, wrong, wrong and Barack's announcment proves it and . . . Wipe the drool from your mouth, Tom-Tom, or use it to soak Barack's balls.  But don't pretend you've offered anything resembling critical thought or even a summary.  Ricks remains an analyst, you remain the ex-husband who pulled a Brinks truck up to your divorce settlement.  Not content to spew at Thomas E. Ricks (who's actually been to Iraq, Tom, what's your excuse?), Tom-Tom goes after Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader supporters, Cynthia McKinney supporters and any lefty who refused to support the Christ-child at the ballot box, "When there was a choice between supporting Barack Obama and attending rallies organized by various Maoists, Trotskyists and neo-anarchists opposed to Obama and electoral politics, the grassroots peace movement headed for the precincts by the thousands."  You just have to laugh, you just have to laugh.    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Making Dennis the Menace" "ABC News: Only 10,000 US troops leaving Iraq this year" "Provincial elections still cause ire" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rounding up Lucy" "And the war drags on . . ." "Kat's Korner: The charity album that just takes" "Silence" "NYT pretends it's Palm Beach Society Magazine" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff More faux change from Barack Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis Liar-in-chief Barack TV Spotlight: Washington Week The Condi II The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin Iraq roundtable Highlights "Talking Iraq" "LET'S TALK IRAQ"

Talking Iraq

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- GROWN UP TABLE

Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and Jim, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. I wanted to invite Jim to participate and he and Betty are on the phone from C.I.'s house on the West Coast. Cedric is participating by phone and all the rest -- including C.I. -- are here at Trina's home on the East Coast. I hope I remembered everyone This is another Iraq roundtable. Ruth, why don't you explain the reason for it?

Ruth: Today at Camp Leujune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama revealed his Iraq 'plan' and C.I. covers it in today's snapshot for those who need a reference or additional information. We are seeing the usual faux lefties, the usual play-members of the 'anti-war' movement emerge with their simpering statements and we are also seeing others make statements that are very disturbing. We are not cowards and we are not idiots so it is important that we speak up at a time when alleged voices of peace refuse to do so.

Rebecca: There are several people attempting to speak right now. I'm going with Jim who is not attempting to speak because of the fact that we're going with the speech and additional comments elaborating on Ruth can come in later. Jim?

Jim: Okay, I think the way this works is we're going to talk about the speech. And, I'll start with where I'm confused. We looked to see which 'left' outlets were talking about it. The Nation has an article by Robert Dreyfuss that does call out the speech and we don't normally link to him but it's "Obama's Iraq Plan Ain't It." But Dreyfuss writes, "Obama didn't say anything about the US-Iraq accord signed last year that sets a 2011 deadline for the departure of all US forces." Is that right?

C.I.: No, that's incorrect. I don't what's going on. Maybe he couldn't make it through the speech but he is wrong. Early in the speech Barack says, "And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." That's not the only reference and, I believe this in the snapshot, the White House today has a set of talking points including Gates' press conference and including Barack's endorsement of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. I don't know Robert Dreyfuss, I have no idea why he made that claim. I can provide other examples if needed but the speech is supposed to be up at the White House website and we can link to it. Barack addressed it. That's not defending Barack. The treaty's a joke, we've all said that since before it passed the Iraqi Parliament. I am not trying to pick apart Robert Dreyfuss' analysis -- which I haven't read and wasn't aware of before Jim brought it up just now -- but I am stating that Barack mentioned the SOFA. It's in the speech.

Jim: Dreyfuss doesn't buy the SOFA either and goes on to write, "Now, of course, that deadline was always seen, by both sides, as (shall we say?) 'flexible.' Prime Minister Maliki, bowing to the rising nationalist trend in Iraq, made it seem like that he wants American forces to leave, but he doesn't. In fact, his top aides have told people in Washington that they want American troops to remain in Iraq for much longer, as long as they continue to build up Maliki's armed forces." Comment?

Ava: I'm jumping in because C.I. and I are taking notes and C.I.'s giving me a look. We have heard -- C.I. and I, Kat and Wally -- what Dreyfuss is saying, we've heard that repeatedly from members of Congress and others. Is it true? We assume it is. That's always been the speculation in DC.

Rebecca: Okay. Stan?

Stan: I looked up The Progressive. They've got nothing on the speech. They've got movie talk. Ruth Conniff offered her stale attacks on Bill Clinton. Everything about Ruth Conniff is dead on arrival. So she's at the right magazine. It's not just that they don't have anything on the speech, they've got nothing on Iraq on their main page. They really are useless.

Rebecca: World Can't Wait?

Cedric: I had them and can't get them to display.

Mike: I'm having that problem too. Cedric texted me on and I tried to. I noticed this last week too, that Fridays the site doesn't load.

Cedric: But a link for them, please. They're not going to play Barack suck up. Elaine?

Elaine: I had United for Peace and Justice and they have nothing on the speech but I did find it curious that they refuse to take part in the March 21st action but are suddenly encouraging local actions. That doesn't just strike me as counter-productive, I see it as destructive, an effort to harm what The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War are organizing. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.


Rebecca: I agree with you, Elaine, that does seem like United for Peace & Justice -- long hostile to A.N.S.W.E.R. and filled with Barack enablers and cheerleaders -- Carl, Tom, Leslie, etc. -- are attempting to harm the turnout for the planned March action. Typical garbage from faux 'leaders.' Speaking of faux 'leaders,' another 'anti-war' group is CODESTINK. Trina?

Trina: The surprise here is that I'm going to ask for a link. They actually did something, I was surprised as I'm sure most of you are. They call Barack's speech today a, this is a quote, "broken promise." Good for them. Of course, I-Need-Attention Benjamin has to be her usual little suck up self and supply what I will term a whorish statement. She's useless, she needs to shut the hell up and take herself a long vaction -- provided her handlers will approve it for her. But Dana Balicki has a good quote on the speech at the start and then she goes all Medea on us: "And there hasn't been any word on military bases left in Iraq that will continue to drain billions of dollars from US taxpayers at a time where that money is very much needed at home. But the withdrawal, and a time line, is a baby step forward from past policies. As citizens, it's our job to move Obama to take giant strides." That's the full quote.

Kat: I'm reading I-Need-Attention Benjamin's nonsense over Trina's shoulder. That is such garbage that if I was standing in a room with Medea, I would pie her lying ass myself. Her premise is that after George W. we should be grateful. Meada, you stupid idiot, are you trying to sound like Nancy Pelosi? Answer that question. Shame on Medea, shame on everyone for acting like George W. Bush is the baseline. Were the last eight years that we objected objecting because Bush was an underachiever? No, it was because he was a criminal. It's not good enough for the left to say, "Barack's a little better than Bush." No, Bush is a criminal. Any sane person should be a little better. A little better doesn't cut it. The country should never again suffer under anyone like W. And we don't grade by comparison. We don't take the worst occupant of the Oval Office -- worse than Nixon according to John Dean -- and use him as the baseline. That's like saying, "We had a serial killer for a president but now we just have an arsonist so let's all be happy!" No, it's unacceptable. Just like Medea's cowardly bulls**t. Call him out. Stop this sniveling and cowardice, I'm damn sick of it.

Stan: I think Kat just nailed one of our problems. We had a psychotic, crazed killer in the White House and some want to act like since Barack manages to wipe away his drool on his own, we should be grateful. That is completely screwed up. Thank you for pointing that out.

Kat: C.I. on impeachment this morning. And I'm being nodded at by C.I. to explain. Bush is a criminal who should have been impeached. If we refuse to hold him accountable -- as may happen -- we're saying Bush acted 'normal' and 'acceptable.' When we use him as a comparison for Barack, to argue that Barack's better than Bush, we are degrading ourselves as a country and as a people. That's not good enough, that's not a standard. That is embracing and okaying the crimes of George W. Bush because we are treating them as normal by being 'grateful' that Barack doesn't do them.

Ruth: And I will add that the speech resulted in a standing ovation. Kat has done a wonderful summary but I do not believe it was planned. C.I. was answering a question --

Ava: About John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again."

Ruth: Yes. And in the reply just took off.

C.I.: It wasn't planned, the energy in the room created it. Credit the people present for it.

Rebecca: C.I.'s being modest, as usual. It really was something and Kat's right to apply it here because CODESTINK is saying that they think George W. Bush is acceptable. When they offer those wimpy, 'it's a move finally,' embarrassing statements, they are putting a "CODESTINK approved" sticker on George W. Bush. They need to think about their actions -- but thinking has never been Medea's strong suit or Jodie's.

Trina: Do we want to link? We don't have to.

Rebecca: I'm gesturing to those present and everyone's shrugging so unless Betty, Jim or Cedric have an objection, the answer will be yes. At least they called it a broken promise and we'll applaud that they've finally done something, no matter how minor, with the hope that something else will follow. If it doesn't, screw 'em. But no one can claim we didn't attempt to be fair even with a group we've grown to despise. Marcia, you also had a website to check.

Marcia: I had Antiwar.com which is a site run by a libertarian, Justin Raimondo and he has a column entitled "The Silence of the Liberals." And I want to emphasize one section of it here:

Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?
Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."
In short: we aren't leaving.

Marcia (Con't): It's a very strong piece and Justin had a really strong article. And, I'm blanking on what Geoff Morrell said they'd do. But didn't he list it?

Mike: Yes, yesterday's snapshot contains that. This is Morrell at the Pentagon Thursday when CNN's Barbara Starr was asking the hard questions. Morrell, "And the three basic areas where those forces would concentrate -- and, again, this is something the president and the secretary have spoken to -- are, number one, continuing to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continuting to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continue to help them train and equip, and support them in their operations. Number two, this force of whatever size it turns out to be would also conduct intelligence-driven, warrant-based combat operations against -- against terrorists, and tehy would do so assisting Iraqi security forces, who would be in the lead. And lastly, they would be required to protect American personnel and other U.S. assets in Iraq. So those are the three fundamental areas. But, you know, I've heard all this talk about it's diseingenous to say that combat forces are being drawn down; all forces are combat forces, and those that remain will be combat forces."

Betty: It's so stupid and this was the point that we all raised repeatedly -- with C.I. leading -- that it is word games. "Combat" or "non-combat." It's just a way to reclassify and keep troops on the ground. I want to insert Thomas E. Ricks speaking on Washington Unplugged, CBS News' online show, earlier this month, "But it was a false phraseology: 'combat troops.' Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat." It's word games and people are willing to play along. And they're taking his bad speech that they applauded today at face value. This is the same man who told them during the campaigns that he would put a 16-month plan into effect. He only hedged and hemmed when Hillary was out of the race. I don't know why we believe a word out of his mouth to begin with but when someone promises you 16-months and then they up it to 19, there's a problem if you can't grasp that you've been lied to and if you can't grasp that you need to be a little wary about future 'promises' from the same person.

Rebecca: Agreed. And we'll stay with Betty because she was the brave one who agreed to step into Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to see how they handled it.

Betty: Well Arianna stuck her as in the air, scratched her paws in the kitty litter and walked off leaving her mess to stink up the entire net. Barack's speech is being treated as news and by that I mean they offer news links to it but apparently can't actually comment on it except for the rah-rah-rah VoteVets -- a Democratic Party enabler of some time. There is no critique, there is nothing. Apparently when she feels it is time to mock special-needs children, Arianna can go full out. When it's time to speak out against politicians who sell out the people and continue the illegal war, she needs to spend several hours with her scratching post first.

Rebecca: And Mike was going to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Mike: They have a strong statement and I want to emphasize this section:

We must ensure that U.S. control of Iraq, which today is accomplished primarily through military force, is not maintained over the longer term through the use of more subtle legal, financial, economic, or political means. "The Iraqi people deserve the dignity of full sovereignty and control of their own nation," says Kelly Doughery, Executive Director of IVAW and former Military Police Sergeant, "and the only way to give this to them is by the immediate and complete withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq – this means withdrawing all military personnel, troops, and defense contractors, closing all military bases, ceasing air operations, and removing American interests intent on controlling Iraqi oil resources."

Mike (Con't): I wanted to include that section because there's a site that never cares about Iraq -- I believe it last wrote about Iraq . . . never. But this site is pushing the angle that Kelly Doughery is on board with Barack's 'plan' and she's not.

Ava: Mike, just to be clear, you're pronouncing her last name that way because?

Mike: That's how IVAW has it.

Ava: It must be a typo. We'll leave it that way in the quote from IVAW but her name is Kelly Dougherty -- with a "t" in the last name. It's not the end of the world and typos aren't uncommon in this community but when you said "Doughery" the second time, C.I. and I were wondering what was up with that.

Rebecca: Okay, Stan, I'm tossing to you for a grade.

Stan: CODESTINK gets a thumbs up for calling it out in an action alert that works if you pull out the quotes. We graded generously. Robert Dreyfuss is the only 'front pager' at a left site who called it out. We'll give him an A+. We give that grade out to IVAW and Antiwar.com as well. The Progressive, The Huffington Post and United for Peace and Justice receive failing grades.


Rebecca: I need Ruth, Trina and Cedric to speak during this section. We're getting close to the end and I need you three to up your participation. How about your impressions of the speech or 'plan' and I want to start with Cedric because he's participating by phone.

Cedric: I was honestly hoping he would surprise us. I was hoping what had come all week before his speech would end up being some elaborate fake out on the press and he would declare something that we -- those who want to end the illegal war -- could take some pride in. Why was I thinking that? There was no reason to think that and Barack certainly has done nothing to warrant hope. But it's the six year mark next month and I was honestly hoping that he would actually do something. It was fantasy, I wasn't being reality based. But I was hoping to find something to praise and I read the speech this afternoon and there was nothing to praise in it. It was very disappointing.

Ruth: Cedric, can I ask a question?

Cedric: Sure.

Ruth: You say this was a fantasy and it seems rather elaborate. Were you thinking of "I was wrong" statements?
Cedric: Absolutely. I was. I had this whole unrealistic day dream where I would have to post, "Hey, I was completely about Barack. Glad to be. I was a fool and I missed it." I actually did entertain thoughts that I would have to write something like that. So it wasn't a passing fancy, it was rather elaborate. It wasn't reality-based but, yeah, I was hoping that somehow the war would end.

Ruth: I can understand that. I'll focus on the actual remarks in terms of what the word assembly said to me. "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." How pompous can you be? I loved C.I. comparing it to the famous passage in Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter. That comparison works because that is a story geared for children and Barack gave a speech that was like he was speaking down to the country. I detected a lot of Bully Boy George W. in the speech. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." That is just an annoying sentence to hear, just the word choice and the order. It grates on the ears. "Let me say this as plainly as I can". I believe that the statement which follows should make clear whether the words were plain. It was a bad speech and that section was like in a film where the leads have no chemistry so they have to keep telling the audience, "I am falling in love with you. I think we're in love. We are so happy." These are things you should be able to tell on your own. Trina:

Trina: Well, I didn't have the elaborate fantasy that Cedric did; however, there were times, brief periods of what-if in the lead up to today. Periods where I thought, "Maybe he'll surprise us." And, like Cedric, it had to do with my just wanting the illegal war to be over. It wasn't based on reality. It was more a desire to see the Iraq War ended. From the start, it was obvious nothing had changed. What worried me the most, at the end of the speech, was I couldn't tell if he believes most Americans are idiots or if he just doesn't care. The only reason that matters is because it might help for some level of understanding. But the 'plan' was a broken promise, it does nothing but continue the illegal war and it's not what 'anti-war' voters voting for him thought they were getting.

Cedric: Trina, you say a few minutes you'd have this fantasy. I was about three sentences in when I realized no fantasies were coming true. For you, when did the realization hit?

Trina: I watched it on TV and so for me the cue was the visual. He was doing that weird, snobby thing with his head. When I saw that posing, I knew nothing was going to change.

Rebecca: Jim had a question or comment -- probably for C.I. -- and I'm sliding to Jim while I try to figure out who else needs to speak. Elaine has a cold and I promised her she didn't have to worry so her one comment will be it unless she decides otherwise and she's shaking her head "no" so that's it from her. Jim?

Jim: The one area you, C.I., graded him well on was the refugees. I was wondering about that.

C.I.: Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, made a fool and ass of herself at the United Nations yesterday speaking on that subject. Barack spoke better on that section. That wasn't me saying, "Great speech, Barack."

Jim: I know that. I'm just wanting to get this on the record because someone's going to e-mail.

C.I.: I did not think that was a great speech. The section highlighted was highlighted in contrast to Susan Rice's remarks which were supposed to be reflective of the White House and were not.

Rebecca: Okay. Betty, I'm looking at Ava and C.I.'s first pages and not seeing much by you. So how about you grade Barack and I'm sorry if someone else got left out.

Betty: I agree with C.I. on the refugee thing. And just to explain that, Susan Rice -- Condi II -- was calling for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. It is not safe for them to return. It wasn't just stupid -- her remarks -- they were dangerous statements. So, yes, I would say it's good to know that Barack's not trying to shove all the refugees back in Iraq the way Rice was. I agree with Ruth that it was poor word choices and poor assembly for the entire speech. He really reminded me of George W. Bush. He showed up to break a promise and tried to con us. Typical of the last eight years.

Rebecca: Okay and that's going to be it. Thank you to everyone who participated. All who read, whatever your own thoughts on today's 'plan' are, please make a point to discuss it with at least one person and help get Iraq in the focus.

Jim: Jumping in quick. Rush transcript. Typos are for your reading enjoyment.

Rebecca: Thank you! I forgot that. And at all sites but The Common Ills, today's Iraq snapshot will immediately follow.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq roundtable"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Cliff Cornell charged with desertion"
"The US military announces another death"
"Congressional reaction to the non-withdrawal"
"I Hate The War"
"Roundtable"
"Fairness Doctrine bites the dust"
"Iraq roundtable"
"iraq"
"hillary"
"Roundtable on Iraq"
"The Village Dunce Olbermann"
"Iraq"
"DETAILS ARE BEING WORKED OUT"
"Iraq roundtable"
"Roundtable on Iraq"
"Suck on it, Law & Order"
"The broken promise roundtable"
"Iraq"
"Dennis Loo and also War Hawk Susie Rice"
"The gimmie gal"
"THIS JUST IN! THE DOG, THE FASHION AND MORE!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Iraq snapshot
Friday, February 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the US military announces another death, Barack remembers a war drags on in Iraq (even if he forgets his campaign promise), Robert Gates goes off script, Susan Rice turns herself into the United Nations laughingstock, John Walsh replies to a war enabler, and much more.

Of all the things the left and the 'left' will have to live with in the next years, chief among them will be War Hawk Susan Rice whom they refused to call out. As Mike noted last night, she's already echoing the last White House with her threats on Iran. CNN reports that in her same UN speech she "briefly" made time for Iraqi refugees: "She called on the international community to provide greater support to the millions of Iraqi refugees who have been displaced because of the war." She called on others?

How typical of Susan Rice. The US has done damn little and until the most recent fiscal year, didn't even meet their quota for allowing Iraqi refugees into this country. The international community has done for more for the Iraqi refugees. Last week, the International Oranization of Migration declared Syria was home to 80% of the Iraqi refugees. Syria, Susan Rice, not the United States. Mundher Sahwi (Azzaman) reported Wednesday that Syria was stating their resources were "strapped" as a result of "spending up to $2 billion a year on Iraqi refugees and that its efforts to persuade donor countries and international aid organizations for help have almost gone unheeded." Syria, Susan Rice says you need to do more. Susan Rice, that's who. No, we're not particularly impressed with her here in the United States either. Yes, she has a highly abusive relationship with the truth.

Quote: "And we encourage members states to help Iraq strengthen its democratic institutions, bring its displaced citizens back home . . ." Stop the tape. That's what the War Hawk said at the United Nations yesterday. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the United Nations, and assorted other groups and organizations have made very clear that Iraqi refugees cannot go back. But that's what Susan Rice said yesterday. And everyone's talking about it. She made a FOOL out of herself and is now the talk of the UN. She DISGRACED the country by looking like the uninformed idiot she is. (Her quote was supplied by a friend at the UN.)

On Sunday, Rebecca Webber (Parade magazine) reported on an Iraqi who was a US translator and recently left with his family: "They joined more than 4 million other Iraqis -- about one in six of the country's pre-war population -- who have fled, creating the biggest refugee crisis of the past decade. More than half of the refugees moved to safer areas in Iraq; a small number of those people live in makeshift camps. Two milliion Iraqis have left the country entirely. About 1.2 million are in Syria, half a million are in Jordan, and tens of thousands have ended up in Iraqn, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey, according to the most recent numbers from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)."

While Susan was lying through her teeth, Staffan de Mistura, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, was informing the United Nations Security Council that, "We have grounds for optimism" in Iraq. He did not push or allued to a need for refugees to return. In fact, none of the speakers made idiots of themselves the way Susan Rice did. Japan, Russia, China, Vietnam, Turkey, France, Uganda and others spoke. And only the United States is being laughed at because we sent an idiot who either is so dumb she doesn't know the fact she's supposedly addressing or she just doesn't give a damn. She's been dubbed "Condi II." Her big UN appearance, fresh in her job and she's the laugh of the United Nations. Well done, Barack Obama, way to change the face of the United States.

Refugees International currently has a form at their website allowing you to send a letter to US President Obama:

Five million Iraqis have been uprooted from their homes and are living in desperate circumstances. By helping displaced Iraqis, the U.S. will help ensure a stable Iraq.
I urge you to craft a new U.S. policy to:
1. Assist Iraqi refugees.
2. Ensure a safe, voluntary return home when possible.
3. Pressure Iraq to meet its responsibilities to its own people.
4. Increase resettlement for those who can't go home.
Please show real leadership to resolve this humanitarian crisis.

Maybe point five could be added: "Please ask Susan Rice to step down before she turns the US into a big mockery"? The illegal war started in March 2003. Refugees International noted in July of last year that the US had allowed "around 10,000 refugees" to come to the US and noted "the U.S. response is incommensurate with the scope of the need. . . . While the U.S. may achieve its goal of resettling 12,000 Iraqi refugees here in the current fiscal year" it did," the needs are much greater. We ask the U.S. to reconsider resettling 105,500 refugees from Iraq and, if necessary, to reassess this number for the next few years." Last August, Aaron Brown hosted a Wide Angle (PBS) on the Iraqi refugees. (Click here for recent episodes. Here for the specific episode.)

Aaron Brown: There's much we can argue about where the Iraq War is concerned but we can't argue about this: Millions of Iraqis now live as refugees because of the war. Hundreds of thousands have come here to Jordan and many, many more ended up in Syria a few hours away. [. . .] By my thinking, it's the most underreported story of the war because the consequences won't be appreciated for years to come. They were some of Iraq's best educated people. Its lawyers, its doctors, its teachers and accountants, some of the wealthiest but also some of the poorest. Sunni and Shia and Christian -- all religions really. Before the war some of them worked for Saddam's old Baathist regime, after the invasion, some worked for the Americans. Many were just caught in between. But here, they are all the same. They can't get jobs, their children have trouble getting into schools, families get separated, people get desperate. We've seen it time and again in our stay here.
and

UNHCR's Oula Ramadan is a registration clerk in Jordan and she explains that they are seen by refugees as the only ones who might be able to help, "so they come with hope. They tell you everything about their lives in Iraq, about their stories, about what happened to them there. And when you hear about the torture, when you hear about kidnapping, about killing in the streets, about militias, you feel like there is a lot of things you don't know if you don't get into these stories." Queen Noor of Jordan discussed the issue with Aaron Brown.

Queen Noor: The social exclusion and marginalization of young people as well as their parents, I think, is a very serious problem with potentially dangerous consequences. No one can afford to have a huge number of people feeling alienated and humiliated and desperate and hopeless.

Aaron Brown: People don't want to think of the consequences of this kind of neglect, but the consequences of hopelessness are real.

Queen Noor: I believe that in host countries like Syria and Jordan, if we are not able to attend to their basic needs and help to instill a sense of hope for the future we will face an even more uncertained and dangerous future.

Aaron Brown: Are you getting the attention you need from the Western countries, from America?

Queen Noor: The industrialized countries -- many feel that the United States and Great Britain and others have a special responsibility because it was their -- their policies in Iraq that -- that resulted in -- in these humanitarian consequences. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what the humanitarian consequences might be and what ultimately the political consequences might be of these humanitarian tragedies. It has to be looked at as in all of our interests to ensure that it doesn't further destabilize a region that is already racked with so much instability -- instability that has spilled over it's borders and outside of this region for far too long now. That I think is -- is something that I worry about every day.

In August, Brown noted that the United States had then accepted only 9,000 Iraqi refugees -- which was approximately one-third of the more than 30,000 referred to the US by the UNHCR. And Susan Rice wants to stand before the UN yesterday and insist that other countries need to do more?

Yesterday, Susan Carroll (Houston Chronicle) reported on Rand Hikmat-Mahmood and her family -- a husband, a teenage son -- who are struggling in Houston and can't find employment:

Next month, Hikmat-Mahmood's family will reach the end of their rental assistance, and they still have no job prospects. She and a growing number of refugees are finding themselves in precarious financial situations as the economy has soured, and competition for once-plentiful entry-level jobs has grown amid rising unemployment.
Resettlement organizations are still reporting success in getting refugees employed on their way to self-sufficiency. But it's taking longer, and it's more difficult. Instead of having about 90 percent of refugees in jobs within about 45 days, the time frame now is about three or four months, Jolick said.
Himat-Mahmood didn't expect that she and her husband, who both hold doctorates in political science and taught in universities in Baghdad, would find jobs on par with those they left behind after fleeing Iraq for Jordan in 2006.
But they had hopes to find something by now.
"I didn't expect the situation would be so difficult," she said.

If something doesn't turn up soon, Carroll informs, the family will have to return to Iraq. How does Susan Rice intend to help that family?

And why is someone sending them to Houston? Fort Worth would seem to be only one example of a better location in that region due to the military bases because, with US troops to remain in Iraq for some time, it seems obvious that Iraqis could be utilized in training sessions informing service members of the customs, the reactions, the lay of the land. Rand Hikmat-Mahmood and her husband are educators and used to working with adults. It would seem a natural job for them to be working on a US base (if they wanted to) providing insight into Iraq and its regional neighbors. Susan Rice, are you going to do anything about that?

While Susan Rice laughable calls for a return to an unsafe land, Mundher al-Shawfi (Azzaman) reports today that Abdulsamad Sultan, Iraq's Displacement and Migration Minister, has declared his ministry has no money and "could not afford paying the travel expenses of Iraqi refugees willing to return home." Sultan points out, "Iraqi authorities have done almost nothing to help Iraqi refugees in neighboring states despite unprecedented oil revenues in the past two years." For those who've forgotten, from the Feb. 18th snapshot: "And proving just how the al-Maliki government refuses to help the people of Iraq, Press TV reports that Iraq's Deputy Minister of Refugees and Displaced Persons, Asghar al-Moussawi is scapegoating those attempting to assist Iraqi Christians by insisting, 'To encourage a group of any particular faith to leave the country is against international law, and causes more harm than benefit to those people'." So said the Deputy Minister of a broke agency. Broke and broken.
Speaking of, Barack went to Camp Lejeune today and gave a speech. Pretty words. Let's give Barack some praise before divining into the ugly realities. He used "drawdown" repeatedly (and the White House wants that spelled as one word), more so than "withdrawal." It is a draw down that he is promising to begin. He (briefly) noted Chris Hill's many qualifications to be the US Ambassador to Iraq. And he spoke much more wisely about Iraqi refugees than did Susan Rice:

Diplomacy and assistance is also required to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. These men, women and children are a living consequence of this war and a challenge to stability in the region, and they must become a part of Iraq's reconciliation and recovery. America has a strategic interest -- and a moral responsibility -- to act. In the coming months, my administration will provide more assistance and take steps to increase international support for countries already hosting refugees; we'll cooperate with others to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq -- because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home.

"Few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home"? So Barack's now supporting the right-of-return for all Palestinians? Good to know. (No, he's not supporting it.) Susan Rice, note Barack's words about "and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq" -- no one's laughing at him at the UN today. He's not been dubbed "Condi II."

Barack attempted to justify his breaking of his 'promise' during the campaign of 16-months withdrawal by pushing the blame onto the military commanders. Guess Barack's not "the decider." (When he introduced that element -- July 2008 -- into his talking points, Tom Hayden suffered an online meltdown but quickly recovered and returned to be Barack's "sweet ass girl.") In part of the speech, Barack attempted to speak to Iraqis directly and made assurances that really can't be made after you've indicated to the New York Times (as he did in 2007) that you'd like bases outside of Iraq -- Kuwait. When you've made that clear, your words about "no claim on your territory" aren't not going to be seen as genuine. If Barack was genuine, he should have added "or neighboring areas." Barack declared to the US military, "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Huessein's regime -- and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done." Uh, no.

WMD was the stated reason for the start of the illegal war and it's really beneath Barack's media image for him to lie like that. It's insulting and indicates a real lack of respect for the US military. There is no sovereign government in Iraq -- there's a puppet government that we propped up and the vice president of the United States is very aware of that and has spoken of it many times including publicly. But let's zoom in on "and you got the job done" to both. If the job's done, why aren't all US troops leaving Iraq right now?

Barack also declared that the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement will be followed and means that all US troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. That is laughable to anyone with a memory. During the campaign of the general election, Barack joined Joe Biden in calling that treaty out, stated it was unconstitutional and declared he would fight any effort by Bully Boy Bush to push it through. Maybe the cobbled together speech (with poor transitions) left him doubtful? Best allusion in the speech? To Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter -- how appropriate that the absurd speech references Carroll who was far better social critic than was Orwell -- "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." Of cabbages -- and kings -- And why the sea is boiling hot -- And whether pigs have wings.

Someone ripped off Barack's wings and he can't fly. The person was US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who held a lengthy press conference at Camp Lejeune today. Status of Forces Agreement? What SOFA? Gates: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011." Did you catch the qualifiers? Asked could the US remain in Iraq past 2011, Gates responded, "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see. I mean, it's a hypothetical. The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point. So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative. I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point."

For the record, the White House is very proud of Gates' press conference and referring reporters to it. Leading everyone to ask: Did they monitor it? Do they have any idea what Gates said?

Barack stood up at the base -- in front of the world -- and said, that come 2011 all US troops out! And Gates is saying that, well, maybe they will be, and, maybe they won't be, and these things need to be negoitated, and . . .

Gates was asked about flexibility and on that he stuck to a talking points. He avoided noting that Barack has stated many times if things go badly, US forces go back in. Barack left that out of today's big speech as well. The press is running with the number 50,000 as the number of US troops left behind in Iraq after the draw down is completed. That is most likely a low-balled figure. (Friends in the administration tell me it's 60,000 -- leading me to believe it's actually 70,000.)

Until all US troops are out, they're at risk. Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 26 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol in Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4252. And for those paying attention, since Saturday, there have been seven deaths of US service members in Iraq announced.

We'll come back to the speech but let's first note that March 21st an action takes place and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

The speech was a bunch of pretty words short on facts and not bound to reality. Look for Tom Hayden to have a wet dream in print over it. Congressional Democrats have voiced differences. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, has been clear since Wendesday that she does not favor leaving such a huge number of 'non-combat' troops in Iraq -- Anne E. Kornblut and Paul Kane (Washington Post) note Pelosi and others today. Yesterday US Senator Russ Feingold issued this statement on Barack's 'withdrawal:'After years of failed Iraq policies, I am pleased by reports that President Obama plans to significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010. Our presence in Iraq has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, overburdened our military, fueled anti-Americanism and distracted us from the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I am concerned, however, by reports that tens of thousands of U.S. troops may remain in Iraq beyond August 2010. I question whether such a large force is needed to combat any al Qaeda affiliates in Iraq or whether it will contribute to stability in the region.

Readers of the New York Times in print get Peter Baker's "Some Democrats Say Obama's Plan Would Leave Too Many Troops in Iraq." It's apparently a very bad report that must be buried so it's been vanished online. This is not it, nor is this. Harry Reid's quoted in the article stating, "I have been one for a long time who has called for significant cutbacks in Iraq. I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I anticipated." Patty Murray states, "I want to hear what the president has to say about justifying whatever number it is that he has. I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Charles Schumer declares, "Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought. We await the justification for why that would be." Only Jack Reed plays happy, of all the senators quoted, only Jack Reed wallows in his own (and Barack's) filth. It's a shame the paper has decided to bury Baker's story. Readers of the national edition will find it on A8. It was buried this morning, it still does not exist online at the New York Times; however, an NYT friend points out it is available at NYT's International Herald Tribune -- under the same headline. And for what reason would the paper toss it to an expected foreign audience and hide it from domestic online readers? "No comment."

"Non-combat." "Combat" forces are being withdrawn. Gates and Barack were on the same page with that talking point. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) earlier this month and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans and 'combat' troops:Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was I will have no American troops dying in 16 months. But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."

Ricks' new book has been discussed at Foreign Policy and Ricks has joined in on the book discussion. Regarding the SOFA, he write that "I just don't think it is that meaningful. As I watched it come together in Baghdad, it appeared to me to simply be a way of taking the American military presence off the table as a divisive issue in Iraqi politics. That is, it was much more about 2009 than about 2011. So I make less of it than others do. I might be wrong. Yes, I know a tremendous amount of time was spent on this at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, because I kept on hearing about it as I did my interviews last year. But expenditure of words is no indication of historical significance-just look at how screamingly irrelevant NATO is becoming, despite many speeches given in Brussels and at summit conferences. Similarly, in the book I didn't discuss the much-ballyhooed war czar, Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, because I didn't see that he mattered much to the course of the war." Prior to the speech by Barack today, he offered this predicition, "So I think he will have troops fighting and dying in Iraq for many years to come. Yes, he will get the troop numbers down. But no, he won't get out." Get out of what exactly? What is Iraq today? Matthew Schofield (McClatchy Newspapers) wrestles with that question and offers (piece is clearly labeled commentary) his opinion:


Yes, Baghdad is better.
Still, there are hundreds of Iraqi soldiers in the crowded streets, armed and armored, checking parked car after parked car. Manning checkpoints that bring traffic to a standstill. Piled into the beds of pickup trucks, thickets of AK-47 rifles pointing out.
The blast this morning was close, a block away. It was right around 7 a.m. I was asleep. A boom, the rattle of the windows, the slight contraction of the chest that comes when a blast is near. This used to be how I'd wake every morning here.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Thursday Mosul bombing that resulted in two Iraqi service members being wounded.

Turning to war resistance news, AP reports that war resister Cliff Cornell, who turned himself in Feb. 10th at Fort Stewart, has been charged with desertion. James Branum is his attorney. PDF format warning, Branum recently wrote an article for On Watch (go through this link if PDF won't display) which Susan Basein has updated. The article is entitled "AWOL from the Army" and explains in the introduction:

This article is intended to provide an overview of the process that a lawyer or a lay military counselor would use in assisting a soldier who is AWOL (absent without leave), or considering going AWOL, from the US Army. While some of the ideas discussed here would be applicable to other branches of the military, it is imperative to understand that many of the procedures discussed below are unique to the Army and that anyone who is assisting a servicemember from another branch should get the latest information on AWOL/UA (unauthorized absence) policies from the sources listed in the addendum to this article.

We'll note another section, "VI. Mitigation and how to prepare it:"

In all AWOL cases, be it PCF or non-PCF eligible soldiers, mitigation is the key to getting your client the best outcome possible. Mitigation is a very broad concept, including almost anything that would help to explain why an offense should not be punished or should be punished with less severity than might otherwise be justified. Generally anything that would be grounds for a discharge (physical or mental health issues, family hardship, etc.) would be appropriate as mitigation, along with anything that would otherwise generate sympathy or understanding by the decision-makers in a case (e.g., command mistreatment of a soldier, failure of a command to stop mistreatment by fellow soldiers, etc.).

Cliff Cornell has explained in a PSA (see December 19, 2007 snapshot for more on the PSA), "My first sergeant who's my higher supervisor, he got up in front of a formation and basically told us there was like two guys who applied for [CO] status. He got up there and told us those two guys who applied for it and that he didn't want anyone else to apply for it because we was going to Iraq whether we liked it or not." Cornell hails from Arkansas and self checked-out of the military January 8, 2005. Kristoffer Walker is the 28-year-old Iraq War veteran who announced he would not return to Iraq. Green Bay Post-Gazette reports, "Army Spc. Kristoffer Walker is trying to hire an attorney with experience dealing with the military in the wake of his decision not to return to his unit in Iraq."

Meanwhile Antony DiMaggio (CounterPunch) explores the sameness at the White House and notes:

Despite the public's long-standing opposition to the war and support for a short timetable for withdrawal, Obama and his generals continue to defy public wishes as they debate whether the occupation will continue for another three years, six years, or indefinitely into the future. Much of the justification for this obstinacy is based on manipulation of available intelligence and from deceptively simplistic arguments that the 2007 troop surge "worked." Detailed analysis reveals that this deception is wide-ranging, as support for the surge spans across liberal and conservative mainstream media outlets.

The escalation ("surge") did not work. Those unhappy with the spin need to take it up with Barack who refused to answer that question repeatedly. Then he's saying the "surge" worked. Barack popularized that myth. (We can -- and have -- offered a detailed explanation of how the "surge" failed. We can also shorthand it: Bush started the "surge" so that the "benchmarks" could be reached -- they were not reached. Therefore the objective of the "surge" was not achieved. The "surge" was a failure.) That's a reality. More realities were in John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" (Dissident Voice) and even more in his reply to PDA hack Laura Bonham (see yesterday's snapshot for more on Bohham). This is Walsh reply to Bonham:John Walsh said on February 26th, 2009 at 12:51pm #"P"DA is complicit in war.In response to Laura Bonham's claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform."P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.john walsh


Meanwhile in labor news, David Bacon offers "Strawberry Workers in Santa Maria" (Political Affairs Magazine -- photos and text) which follows Guillermina Arzola of San Sebastian del Monte in Oaxaca as he and other immigrant workers toil in Santa Maria, California in the berry fields. As always, Bacon illuminates the realities in this 'hot-button' issue that tends to reduce the humanity at other outlets (intentionally or not -- but I'm not feeling very generous this morning so I'll say intentionally). These are very moving photos. David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on many PBS stations (check local listings) and they explore "Retirement at Risk:"In this struggling economy, boomers are rightfully worried about the funds they were counting on to carry them through the rest of their lives. Will they be able to afford their own retirement?NOW turns to two experts for help and insight: Amy Domini, a pioneer in the field of socially responsible investing; and journalist Dan Gross, who covers the economy for Slate and Newsweek.Read an excerpt from Daniel Gross' new book: "Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation"Washington Week also begins airing tonight on many PBS stations and I hesitate to say it but it has the makings of being a show worth watching this week. Dan Balz (Washington Post), Peter Baker (New York Times) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News) will be on. Baker has been covering Barack's plan for 'withdrawal' and Martha, of course, famously told Washington Week viewers last month what was going to take place. From the last Washington Week for January -- Ava and I noted it here:Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.Washington Week also notes that Jim Lehrer will have an exclusive interview with Barack Obama on this evening's NewsHour.Moving over to broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, on 60 Minutes:The Man Who KnewHarry Markopolos repeatedly told the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernie Madoff's investment fund was a fraud. He was ignored, however, and investors lost billions of dollars. Steve Kroft reports.
Mexico's WarDrug-cartel fueled violence has turned into a war in Mexico, with thousands of deaths and the government battling well-armed gangs whose military-quality weapons come mostly from U.S. dealers. CNN's Anderson Cooper reports.
Bobby JindalHe's been called the Republican Obama and some think he may run for the presidency some day. But his opposition speech after the president's address to Congress this week caused some to say he's too young and inexperienced. Morley Safer profiles the governor of Louisiana.
60 Minutes, Sunday, March 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.


Wrapping up, Liza Minelli tells Liz Smith, "If you've got one foot in yesterday, and one foot in tomorrow, you're pissing all over today!" I know and like Liza and that's our entry point for a friend at wowOwow (which previews Liz's interview with Liza for Parade -- see your Sunday paper if it's one of the many that carries Parade or use link and Liz is now a contributing editor for Parade) who has asked twice this week that something be noted. wowOwow was mentioned in the New York Times this week as a result of the New York Post dumping Liz Smith's column (apparently under the belief that words confuse Post readers). Liz's columns will now appear at wowOwow (and across the country, she remains syndicated, in various newspapers). Joni Evans explained, "Beginning next week Liz Smith will be posting more news, hot gossip and opinions all the time on wowOwow -- free from the constraints of newspaper deadlines. Thursday" that's yesterday "will be the last Liz Smith column for The New York Post -- the first time in 33 years that Liz Smith's column will not be in a New York newspaper. This sad news for the New York print business is spectacular news for us. Our fabulous and beloved Diva of Dish will be here on wowOwow, posting exclusive-to-Liz breaking celebrity news as it happens. It will, occassionally, be highlighted with audio and film and all the tools of an Internet entrepreneur." Marlo Thomas, Cynthia McFadden, Joan Ganz Cooney, Joan Juliet Buck, Sheila Nevins and others try their hand at a Liz Smith type item at wowOwow today. For strangers who ask that something to be noted, even friends get put on hold. Again, I've been asked to note this all week and haven't had the time. It's better to note it today because Liz Smith hasn't died, she hasn't retired and, as she says today, in her first column free from the Post, "I have decided it is quite exhilarating to be fired, at the age of 86, from a job you've had for 14 yeras. Fortunately, I seem to be healthy so I'm forging ahead. I do want to say that I am in love all over again with ABC-TV's Bill Ritter, guardian of the six and 11 PM news in NYC, because in discussing the end of my affair with the New York Post tabloid, he described me as 'Eighty-six -- going on 40!' It was almost worth losing a salary and a daily tenure of 33 years in New York newspapers just to hear those words." We used to Liza as an entry point, we'll use someone else I know as an exit. Dee Dee Myers is the author of Why Women Should Rule the World -- just out in softcover after being a bestseller in hardcover -- and at wowOwow she elaborates on the book's topic and on Elena Kagan being named the US solicitor general:

The simple fact is: Men and women often experience the world differently. And that experience influences what we buy, what we read and what we watch, who we vote for and how we lead. It shapes our priorities and values. It makes us who we are. And when we include -- and respect -- these different points of view, we broaden the dialogue, expand the scope of inquiry, change the way we think. We make business more efficient. We make government more responsive. We get better science, better schools and better courts. It matters that there will be a woman in the solicitor general's office. And in the secretary of state's office. And in the speaker's office. And in countless other offices across the country. It matters not only because the women can do their jobs as well as their male predecessors. It also matters because they see things differently. Even if those differences start with something as simple as a tampon.


iraq
cbs newswashington unplugged
thomas e. ricks
cliff cornell
jim branum
david bacon
the newshour60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbsdan baltzpeter bakermartha raddatzthe new york timespeter baker
the washington postanne e. kornblutpaul kane