heroes

oh, nathan, how could you go bad on me!!!!

or, i should say, how could you go evil on me?

a bad boy? who doesn't like a little of that?

but nathan's gone evil.

we're talking nbc's heroes. if you didn't watch it, you can use the link to watch monday's episode (watch is online).

this was the 2nd of the 2-parter on the eclipse. as expected, every 1 (except peter) got their powers back as the eclipse ended.

i think peter may have as well but he didn't know to try.

i want his powers back, if you can't tell. so elle and siler were powerless and clair's father shot elle and cut siler's throat but siler came back to life after the eclipse. before that, he explained to siler that he is not the brother of nathan and peter and that he's being lied to. he told him that elle knew this. (she does.) he also told elle that siler killed her father.

that wasn't a big deal to elle (the news) but it was to siler. at the end of the episode he was on top of her and she thought they were going to make out again but then she informed him he was hurting her and he began attempting to do his bit where he uses his finger to open up the head and remove your brain.

claire?

shot last episode and taken to the hospital by her mother. they can't figure her out at the hospital. she wants her father. her mother's stalling about the questions. then claire dies. but, as soon as the eclipse ends, she comes up gasping for air.

she gets back to her home and where is her brother during any of this? honestly, they seem to forget that character exists 1/2 the time.

she's back home and claire explains she died and her father wants to know when! she thinks he's crazy but he's assuming if she came back so could . . .

siler and elle have claire's mother. that's where siler learns he's not peter and and nathan's brother.

nathan does a bit of a boring story (it was very boring and the only thing that held my attention was assuming/hoping peter would fly at any minute). at the end of it, he decided his father (his evil father) was right and he headed off to work with him (over peter's objection).

remember how elle and siler had claire's mother.

hiro pops in, tags elle and takes her elsewhere, comes back and grabs silar and does the same, then grabs claire and he and she go back in time to when they were little kids. they watch a scene unfold.

that's pretty much it. matt and his girlfriend got closer.

it was a good episode but i do not want nathan bad and i do not want peter to be powerless.

it did have more claire and i also look foward to next week because i think claire and hiro work well together.

that's going to be it for me tonight.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, November 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, KRG objects to al-Maliki, the United Nations issues a report on Iraq, and more.

Today the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq released their thirteenth "Human Rights Report" with this one covering January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008. In their press release, they note:

The report highlights the situation of detainees across the country that remains of severious concern, including in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. Many detainees have been deprived of their liberty for month or even years, often under harsh physical conditions, without access to defense counsel, or without being formally charged with a crime or produced before a judge. Continuing allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of inmates are of particular concern. Slow bureaucratic procedures, insufficient resource, degraded infrastructure and lack of effective accountability measures result in inordinate delays in processing detainees' cases.
The plight of women across Iraq still requires urgent measures to combat gender-based violence, including so-called honor crimes.

The report is entitled "Human Rights Report" [PDF format warning, click here] and is thirty pages and divided into five sections. The first section is the Executive Summary, the second is the Recommendations, third is Protection of Human Rights, fourth is Rule of Law and finally Promotion activities of UNAMI. The summary is ten points that notes the violence in generalities, notes that the March and May attacks on Basra and the Sadr City section of Baghdad resulted in claims that civilians were wrongly targeted (and that UNAMI is investigating those claims), the targets of certain professional classes, the issue of prisoners, etc. The Recommendations are broken up into three sections. First up is those give for the Iraqi government and topping that list is: "Issue on a regular basis mortality data compiled by the Ministry of Health, based on informaction received from all governorates and statistics kept at the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad, together with details of the methodology used to calculate the figures." In addition, they called for measures to protect at risk populations (religous and ethnic minorities, women) and to ensure prisoners are provided with counsel (and access to relatives), prompt judiciary processes, investigations of reports of abuse, better trained employees, etc. In this section the confusion over which prisoners belong to the US (M-NF) and to the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) is broached and that leads us to the recommendations for the Kurdish region which (yet again) notes that policies regarding journalists and media professional need to be reviewed, that the vulnerable communities need to be better protected (not that different from their recommendations for the Iraqi government) the policies with regards to prisoners need to be reviewed and careful consideration should be given to "a moratorium on the death penalty pending a thorough review of legal proceedings followed at both pre-trials and trial stages." Next come the recommendations for M-NF which include the need for continued investiagtions ("throughly, promptly and impartially") of all alleged "unlawful killings," a weak request that the US follow internationa human rights law, determine custody of prisoners captured jointly by the US and Kurdish forces, a weak request to allow international human montiors access to US prison facilities, etc.

The next section, "Protection of Human Rights; Extrajudicial executions, targeted and indiscriminate killings" notes at the start reports that civilians were targets following "car and suicide bombings" and that "Armed groups continue to ignore the distinction between civilian and combatants." The same grouping (armed groups) has acted with impunity in attacking "government officials, religious figures, state employees, law enofrmacement personnel and a number of professional groups including academics, journalists, lawyers and judges." The section then goes on to provide a breakdown of the violence for the time period. The next section focuses on the targeting of certain groups. We'll note two specific groups from that section.

Religious figures and activists have been the victims of targeted violence throughout Iraq during the reporting period. These attacks included the killing of Sheikh Essam Fleih Hassani, Imam of Al-Mukhtar mosque in Samarra, a member of the Sunni "Association of Muslim Scholars" and a well-known figure opposed to Al-Qaeda and other militia groups. On 8 February, four Christian activists who were on a missionary work with the Norwegian Churches Organization were kidnapped by gunmen from Al Sakhra Church in Barsa. On 29 February, Paulos Faraj Rahho, Chaldean Bishop of Mosul, was kidnapped and killed. On 5 April, gunmen shot dead Adel Yousif, a priest in Hay al Karrada in Baghdad. On 11 April, Riyad al Nouri, director of Al Sadr Office was shot dead by gunmen in Najaf. On 15 April, Ali al Fadhli, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani was shot in downtown Basra city. On 16 April, gunmen attacked and injured Sheikh Habib Al-Khateeb.

[. . .]

Medical workers and doctors continued being targeted. These attacks included the killings of surgeon Jinan Al Sabbagh in Basra on 12 Janury, Munther Mehrej Radi, Dean of the Faculty of Denstiry in Baghdad University, on 23 January, Khalid Nasir Al Meyeahee, Director of Basra Hospital on 9 March. Dr. Amer Lazem in Baghdad on 17 April, Dr. Barakat Kathem in Balad Rux on 16 June and the kidnappings of surgeon Mohammad Abid Ali Al Ta'ei in Hilla on 10 April, Dr. Sabbar Mahrooz Abdullah, and his assistant, Dr. Ahmad Salah, in Tikrit on 15 May.

The report notes that Diyala Province had "the highest number of kidnapping incidents" and that it, Nineveh, Anbar and Diwaniyah joined Baghdad in having large number of corpses discovered. Now a few who can go into the way-back machine will remember when the New York Times (and which reporter) were pimping the 'less corpses discovered in Baghdad per week!' lie to sell the idea that things were looking up, thing were looking up. So note this: "During the reporting period, between 3 and 5 unidifentifed bodies were found almost on daily baiss in different areas of Baghdad, including Karrada, Mansour, Sadr City, Dora, Tobchi, Shaab, Fedhyah and Hurriyah." Three to five would be more than when the New York Times was insisting -- case closed!

There is no news in the section on contractors. The next section explores civilian deaths at the hands of Iraqi forces and US forces (but not really much data on the latter). We'll note this:Civilian deaths reportedly caused by Iraqi Security Forces (as well as by US-supported armed groups such as Awakening Councils and the Sons of Iraq) including the following: a lawyer shot by Iraqi police curing an exchange of fire with gunmen in Kut, on 8 January; 15 civilians killed in a fight between Awakening Council members and suspected insurgents in three villages around Mosul on 10 February; nine civilians killed in clashes between Iraqi Security Forces and the Mahdi Army in Kut on 11 March; 9 civilians were killed amid clashes between armed groups and Iraqi security personnel in Hay al Mithaq in Mosul on 11 March; one woman was killed by police in car that failed to stop at a checkpoint in Samarra on 14 March; in Mosul four civilian were killed on 9 April, and two others amid clashes between gunmen attacking a security checkpoint and the armed people defending the checkpoint and the armed people defending the checkpoint (south east of Mosul) on 27 April.

The next two pages involve the "Situation of women" and starts off noting complaints to UNAMI:

. . . from women regarding restrictions on their freedoms by conservative elements operating in neighbourhoods, governmental institutions and educational establishments in certain parts of Iraq. Wome reported receiving verbal comments on their mode of dress, particularly in cases where they were not wearing headscarves. UNAMI also received reports of instances where women faced harassments or threats at checkpoints for similar reasons. Female students at universities reported increasing pressure on them by their families to conform to a more conservative style of dress and behavior. Where female students failed to comply, retaliatory measures outside the university grounds were reported against them. Certain areas formely controlled by radical elements have witnessed a lessining of such pressures on women and girls since it came under the control of Iraqi Security Forces or the Awakening Councils. This includes the ability to move more freely, report to work or attend educational activities.

The report also notes violence throughout Iraq, and the incidents of 'honor' killings and domestic violence in the Kurdish region. That's the first half of the report. Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reports a move towards improvement on the part of some women in Baghdad and uses college student Hadeel Ahmed as one exmaple. Ahmed is learning to drive and has given up "her head scarf and long skirts". That is not: All things are great for women in Iraq! Or even just in Baghdad. It is one small group of women in Baghdad who are making an effort to reclaim rights they had prior to the start of the illegal war. Electronic Iraq posts an IRIN report entitled "Violence against Iraqi women continues unabeted" and quotes the UN's Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Yakin Ertuek explaining that "violence against Iraqi women is committed by numerous actors, such as militia groups, insurgents, Islamic extremists, law enforcement personnel, members of the family as well as the community." And Sunday Afif Sarhan (Observer) reported that 'honor' killings in Basra had increased with 81 women murdered in 2008 to date including Rand Abdel-Qader:

Rand Abdel-Qader was killed after her family discovered that she had formed a friendship with a 22-year-old infantryman whom she knew as Paul. She was suffocated by her father then hacked at with a knife. Abdel-Qader Ali was subsequently arrested and released without charge.
Rand's mother, Leila Hussein, who divorced her husband after the killing, went into hiding but was tracked down weeks later and assassinated by an unknown gunman. Her husband had told The Observer that police had congratulated him for killing his daughter.

Meanwhile Reuters notes Turkey sent planes to bomb northern Iraq again yesterday. Hurriyet notes that the Turkish military has confirmed the attacks: "Turkish warplanes on Monday bombed terror organization PKK targets in northern Iraq, the general staff said in a statement, confirming an earlier statement by Iraq's border guards." AP reports Iraqi refugees in Syria are not pleased by the treaty and that approximately 3,000 of them protested against it yesterday: The protesters carried banners including one that read: 'The pact aims to put Iraq under US tutelage.' They also chanted anti-US slogans and called on Iraqi leaders to revoke the pact." Meanwhile South Korea says bye-bye. Hwang Hae-rym and Teri Weaver (Stars and Stripes) note South Korea has now left Iraq and is no longer part of the so-called 'coalition' of the willing.


Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing that claimed 5 lives and left thirty people wounded and a Mosul cart explosion that claimed 6 lives and left fifteen people wounded. Reuters notes a Hilla roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 5 Iraqi soldiers.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two police officers wounded in a Mosul shooting.

AP reports that the "U.S. military is urging Iraq's Shiite-led government to boost the number of Sunni volunteers into its security forces" -- meaning the "Awakening" Council members. The "Awakening" Council figures into a lengthy statement the Kurdish Regional Government issued. They noted they had held off commenting specifically about Nouri al-Maliki's November 20th speech because they didn't want to harm the vote in Parliament on the treaty. Their concerns include the use of groups similar to the "Awakening" Council which they feel not only rewards thugs who have caused harm in the past but undermines their ability to police their own area. (al-Maliki and Baghdad's take is that the tribal councils are necessary to provide protection and that the KRG has 'expansionist desires'). The KRG is also worried that al-Maliki is circumventing the Constitution and they note the following:
1. The Prime Minister aims to suspend the Constitution. Despite his talk about the need to make amendments to the Constitution, what he really wants is to suspend the Constitution; a constitution which he participated in drafting and for which he has expressed admiration. The idea of suspending the constitution is a very dangerous action indeed. Amendments can be made to the Constitution and there is a mechanism set out in the Constitution for this purpose. Suspension of the Constitution is unacceptable to all parties, even those who opposed the constitution.2. Imposing decisions of one party at the exclusion of participation in the decision-making process by other parties who are part of a coalition government. The Prime Minister applies the decisions taken by the Islamic Dawa Party (the Prime Minister's faction) to the government. This is in violation of the Constitution and in violation of all the agreements we have. Most importantly, it is a violation of the program of the coalition government of federal Iraq.3. Militarization of society by using the Iraqi Army for political purposes and establishing political groups armed and funded by the government. The Federal Prime Minister attempts to militarize the society and create Support Councils. In fact, these are all linked to and belong to his party. Of course, his party has the right to establish such organizations in accordance with regulations set out in the law. But they cannot be established in the name of the government and be funded and armed by the government.4. The federal government does not rely on a law to govern the work of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers doesn't even have an agreed upon charter, so proposals and decisions are all drafted in the Office of the Prime Minister (by leaders of the Islamic Dawa Party) first and then presented to the Council of Ministers.5. The Federal Prime Minister keeps maintaining that he is the only one in charge of the executive branch. But this is not the case when we look at Article-66 of the Constitution which says, "The federal executive power shall consist of the President of the Republic and the Council of Ministers and shall exercise its powers in accordance with the Constitution and the law."The Constitution has entrusted executive powers to the Council of Ministers. Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is the head of the Council of Ministers. Important decisions must be made by the Council of Ministers headed by him. They cannot be taken by himself on behalf of the Council of Ministers. In the new Iraq, decisionmaking is not to be monopolized.

Turning to the War Hawk Corpratist who is now president-elect, Barack Obama gets easy publicity today for comments about he'd 'like' a 16-month withdrawal . . . of combat troops. The same old song-and-dance. Chris Hedges (Truthdig via Information Clearing House) reminds:

Barack Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and leave behind tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines in Iraq -- he promises only to withdraw combat brigades -- is a failure to rescue us from the status of a rogue nation. It codifies Bush's "war on terror." And the continuation of these wars will corrupt and degrade our nation just as the long and brutal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has corrupted and degraded Israel. George W. Bush has handed Barack Obama a poisoned apple. Obama has bitten it.The invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were our response to feelings of vulnerability and collective humiliation after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They were a way to exorcise through reciprocal violence what had been done to us.Collective humiliation is also the driving force behind al-Qaida and most terrorist groups. Osama bin Laden cites the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which led to the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, as the beginning of Arab humiliation. He attacks the agreement for dividing the Muslim world into "fragments." He rails against the presence of American troops on the soil of his native Saudi Arabia. The dark motivations of Islamic extremists mirror our own.

Meanwhile Jeremy Scahill (CounterPunch) examines whom the War Hawk is staffing with, "Barack Obama has assembled a team of rivals to implement his foreign policy. But while pundits and journalists speculate endlessly on the potential for drama with Hillary Clinton at the state department and Bill Clinton's network of shady funders, the real rivaly that will play out goes virutally unmentioned." Almost worth applauding, Scahill. But you don't know a thing about Bill's funders and your association with crap-ass Pacifica programming, specifically the one where John Nichols FLAT OUT LIED that he was getting proof in Canada that it was Hillary and not Barack talking to the Canadian government about NAFTA means you should learn to stick to what is known. After Scahill defeats the point of his own opening, he gets around to semi-exploring Susan Rice -- a Supreme War Hawk (as noted here for months and months and months) and that is work worth applauding.

Thursday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile in Germany a US soldier is seeking aslyum. Andreas Buerger (Reuters) reports 31-year-old Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd self-checked out of the military in 2007 and is now seeking sancturay in Germany where he held a press conference today and declared: 'When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing. I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . . Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders'." Today James Ewinger (Plain Dealer) reports for Andre's hometown (Cleveland) that the 31-year-old war resister calls the Iraq War "illegal" and he notes:

Shepherd said he grew up on East 94th Street in Cleveland, attended Lakewood High School and studied computer science at Kent State University until he ran out of money.
He enlisted in 2004 with the hope of flying the Apaches, but was urged to become a mechanic first.
Scharf said he doubts that Shepherd's expected order to return to Iraq would, by itself, constitute an unlawful order.
"His best argument would be that Apaches are used to kill civilians," Scharf said, but he still viewed it as a weak case.

iraqthe washington postmary beth sheridanhwang hae-rymteri weaverthe los angeles timestina susmanchris hedges
jeremy scahill

bully boy's not so fine economic mess

The evidence of a recession has been widespread for months: slower production, stagnant wages and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.
But the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, charged with making the call for the history books, waited until now to make it official -- and the announcement came on a day when the American stock market fell nearly 9 percent in a single session.

that's from the new york times. trina's been telling us this was coming and explaining why - in post after post - there would not be a big enough rally of holiday shopping to help the economy. 'Potatoe Pancakes in the Kitchen' is her most recent post and i love trina because she did what the 'names' couldn't - she found a way to talk about the economy that people could follow. her readership is way up since she started addressing the economy. that was easily over 6 months ago. now she knows - from e-mail feedback - exactly how far to carry it each week. how far is too far for the average reader? how much backstory is needed? trina's done what all the egg heads couldn't.

and now we've got the recession officially called. forbes says (via ap article) it's the 4th worst drop ever for the dow.

now bully boy is lying about the iraq war and c.i.'s got that covered in today's snapshot so i thought i'd stay with the economy and instead note bully boy's lies and wimperings there.

this is holly rosenkrantz (bloomberg news) reporting on bully boy's interview with charlie gibson for abc:

“The one thing I don’t want to have happen is people say this thing is in a financial meltdown and we didn’t do anything,” he said.
“I’m sorry it’s happening, of course,” he said in an interview on “World News with Charles Gibson” on ABC. “Obviously I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s.”
The president described as an “uh-oh moment” being told by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that “bold” action was needed to avoid another Great Depression.

what a moron. and, as with iraq, he expects us to forget the public record. he's worried about job losses and 401ks? well were that LIE true, he would have addressed ways to protect both following the enron meltdown.

remember that?

the thing that was going to make him a 1 term president until 9-11 happened? 9-11 happened and no 1 could mention enron or what a coward bully boy was or how inept he was or even how he didn't win the 2000 election.

but if bully boy gave a damn about jobs or 401ks, he would have taken care of those issues in the 1st term of his 1st year. he did not do a damn thing.

don't spit on my fave and tell me it's a kiss.

in other news, whose ears are these?

that's actually the name of a book (by peg hall) that flyboy's reading to our daughter. he grabbed it at c.i.'s (who naturally said, 'take it with you') and the baby just loves this book and just loves her daddy reading it to her. the cover has some light purple (not bright) which helps because that's becoming her color. and it also allows for animal noises when reading, which tickles her to no end. (flyboy can do many, many impersonations.) the elephant nosies are her favorite. no, she's not old enough to really enjoy the book in terms of understanding it but she does enjoy the experience of being read to and all the performance that comes with it.

i'm sure there was something else i meant to cover. (didn't see heroes, we tivoed it. plan to note it tomorrow.) but i'm forgetting. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, December 1, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Miss Bully Boy's Regrets, a Reuters photographer is ordered released but still not
released, liars continue to pimp the treaty and more.

"Even though the security in Baghdad has improved so much in this past year people there still live in constant fear of bombings and assassinations," Renee Montagne declared showing just what a loon inhabits NPR's Morning Edition. No things have not "improved." "Improved" is an insulting term to use for a war-torn country and an ignorant one. Renee would have sounded like an idiot on any day but especially on a day when bombings claimed over 30 lives. She was introducing Ivan Watson's report and, possibly, had NPR itself not been targeted in Baghdad, Renee and Morning Edition wouldn't have even bothered today with the Iraq War. Watson, Ali Hamdani, Mohanad Adhab Mahdi and Dawood Slman went to Rabiye Street in Baghdad to check what, before the start of the illegal war, was a commercial district and had become "the height of the fighting in 2005, 2006 and 2007". What did they find?

Ivan Watson: We paid a short visit to Rabiye Street yesterday to see if, after several months of relative calm, life was getting back to normal? Instead we found this shopkeeper who asked not to be named standing in his empty pastry shop.

Ivan Watson (to shopkeeper): Have you had any customers today?

Shopkeeper (translated): Just one.

Ivan Watson (to shopkeeper): What happened?

Ivan Watson: The shopkeeper laughed at the question saying everybody knows what happened in Baghdad. This place was horrible, he added, there were massacres here and dead bodies in the street. One of the only restaurants open on Rabiye Street is the Mosul kebab shop located next to an Iraqi army checkpoint. The owner, Athir Abdul El Mawjood, had to close his restaurant for eight months during the worst of the fighting.

Athir Abdul El Mawjood (translated): RPGs were everywhere in this city, gunmen were everywhere, clashes regularly.

Ivan Watson: Mawjood invited us in for lunch. NPR's four man reporting team included Iraqi translator Ali Hamdani and Iraqi drivers Mohanad Adhab Madhi and Dawood Salman. Our two cars were both parked in front of the restaurant. We were walking back to the vehicles after lunch agitated Iraqi soldiers suddenly ran up screaming "Abwa!" -- which means "bomb" in Iraqi Arabic. Iraqi army Lt. Mohamed Jabbour was pushing our drivers Mohanad and Dawood away from the cars. Seconds later this happened.

[Shouting. Cars honking. The sound of an explosion.]

Ivan Watson: That's the sound of our armored BMW exploding in a flash of fire about 15 feet from where we were standing. It took several shell shocked seconds for reality to sink in.

Watson goes on to explain it was a sticky bomb placed under the driver's side of the car. That was reported today on Morning Edition. Yesterday, when the bombing took place, Watson discussed the bombing with Andrea Seabrook on All Things Considered.

Ivan Watson: And the force of the blast blew up the armored plates in the car, completely vaporized the steering wheel. I couldn't find the steering wheel and, uh, I'm pretty sure anybody who would have been a passenger inside would have been killed or severely injured by the force of that explosion. None of us were injured, thank God, none of the Iraqis who were standing on the sidewalk with us were injured. No windows were broken next to us and in fact there was a street vendor who had a table of crates of eggs about six feet away from the parked BMW that blew up and not a single one of those eggs was damaged.

Andrea Seabrook: Ivan, this has never happened to NPR personnel before. What are the authorities saying?

Ivan Watson: The Iraqi troops at the scene and one of the reasons we felt comfortable -- more comfortable -- conducting interviews in this kebab shop was because there was an Iraqi army post about twenty, thirty feet away from where we parked the car. They saved our lives because they say they got a call from an informant about three minutes before the bomb went off and they ran forward first and actually pulled back one of our drivers who was trying to get into the car. They said that this was a -- one of the lethal bombs that have been used lately over the course of the last year in Iraq. "Sticky bombs" which magnetically adhere to the bottom of vehicles and have been killing Iraqi officials and police and recently a bus that was carrying at least a dozen women working for the Trade Ministry with a high death toll.

Andrea Seabrook: We here in the States have been hearing for months that security in Baghdad has been improving greatly but obviously there is still a significant risk to covering the war

Ivan Watson: Compared to a couple of years ago, it does feel safer and there are neighorhoods where people are out in the streets, where there is now night life, shops are open and it's been a real treat as a reporter to go and explore these areas tentatively -- perhaps to step out and not feel like you're a target. I think in the wake of this incident, foreign news operations in Iraq are going to have to rethink their approach to working in this city the speed with which the people placed this bomb under the vehicle, it's really terrifying to think about how close we came to not being here with you tonight.


Meanwhile, mark the calendars, Jodie Evans and I-Need-Attention Benjamin may not be the biggest idiots of the week. Red Diaper Baby Amy Goodman, so busy pleasuring herself over Barack Obama's win she helped so much with, demonstrated just what a loon, idiot and non-journalist she's always been -- independent or otherwise -- today on the trashy, daily hour of propaganda Pacifica Radio broadcasts where she declared of the treaty voted on by Iraq's Parliament Thursday that it was "landmark" and it "paves the way for U.S. forces to withdraw by the end of 2011." Blah, blah, blah. The most useless tool of US imperialism is what Liar Goody's become (which does explain her week at the Aspen Institute last summer and her need to parade their speakers on her program without informing her listeners of that fact) decided the way to 'round out' her propaganda was to quote the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki -- surely a trusted voice! Democracy Sometimes! cries Goody, just never, ever today. So nice of the non-reporter and non-journalist to toss out about 30 bad seconds to the Iraq War -- remember, the war she tried to ride to fame, the one she got her tired, droopy ass booked on the cable shows via, "Only I, Amy Goodman, tell the truth about the Iraq War, only I, Amy Goodman, cover the Iraq War, only I, Amy Goodman . . . " Today, not only can she not get the facts right, she expects her increasingly dwindling audience to be grateful she managed to toss out a 'shout-out' to an ongoing, illegal war that will hit the six-year mark this March.

In the real world, the treaty passed the Parliament on Thursday. It was covered in the Thursday and Friday snapshots last week. Amy Goodman called it a "landmark" -- Xenophobic Whore says what? While The Liar Goody chants "USA! USA!", the reality is that the treaty went before the 275 member Parliament and was voted with 149 members voting for it. No, that's not a landmark, nor is it the two-thirds required by Iraqi's own Constitution. As for "landmark," AFP explained Friday who was calling it that, the United States government. If we can get past Liar Goody's "USA! USA!" chants, lets remember what Iran's Press TV reported:


"Washington echelons repeatedly threatened to overthrow the Iraqi government if they continued their opposition to the security deal," said Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati. Iraq's al-Morsad reported on Oct. 10 that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had warned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be 'ousted' unless he signed the US-proposed security pact. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has also claimed that the Bush administration had threatened to cut off vital services to Baghdad if it further delayed the accord, saying the threats were akin to 'political blackmail'. "It was really shocking for us…Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing," al-Hashimi said on Oct. 26.

As we noted during the holiday, The Scotsman explains the treaty better than any domestic outlet: "On Thursday, Iraqi lawmakers approved a pact allowing US forces to stay in Iraq for three more years." It does not guarantee the US leaves at the end of 2011. It takes a real liar, a real whore to repeat that lie (hello, Amy Goodman, tired and old but someone's tossing dimes on her night stand). For those who missed reality, we'll drop back to Thursday's snapshot.

Yeah, it's a one-year agreement. Only 2009 cannot be changed or cancelled. Everything else that the White House says is set-in-stone is actually a conditional option that can be wiped away by either side. Today the White House finally released the agreement in English. We'll jump in at Article 30 The Period for which the Agreement is Effective:

1) This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.

Get it? Paragraph three: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect." Meaning only 2009 is set in stone. It is too late for either party (US or Iraq) to give one year's notice and cancel it in 2009. They can give notice to cancel in 2010 or 2011. The second clause is also worth noting because it weakens the strength of any agreement as well: "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agrement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional proceudures in effect in both countries." That's the aspect that allows for a change and all the 'flowery' respect for Constitutional procedures is hog wash. The Iraqi Parliament needed to have two-thirds of all members (not just members present) to pass the treaty today. They did not have that. According to their Constitution and their laws, that's what was needed. In the US, Congressional approval is needed over all treaties and we know that has not take place. We further know that Barack Obama -- alleged Constitutional scholar -- doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He show boated and did his little pretty words number while campaigning but despite all his insisting that the treaty would have to come before the Congress -- including becoming one of thirteen co-sponsors on Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting upon that -- he shut his corporate mouth and put his tiny tail between his legs to slink off like the disgusting, cowering trash he is. He's not going to stand up for the Constitution 'later.' He couldn't stand up for it right now.

An agreement built upon a systematic disrespect for the rule of law does not suddenly develop one. An agreement built upon lies does not suddenly embrace honesty. The treaty is built on lies and they include the lies to the American people. Why is the US pursuing this treaty? The White House keeps talking about these 'recent' gains in Iraq. Today is November 27th of 2008. Recent would, for most of us, go back no further than the end of spring. But Article 25 explains Nouri al-Maliki and Condi Rice notified the United Nations that the Security Council's mandate would be cancelled at the end of this year . . . last year. al-Maliki's letter was dated December 7th, Rice's December 10th. 'Recent' events?

The agreement the White House has released may not be the official agreement or the final one. It is the one that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed November 17, 2008. The note above their signatures states: "Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."

That version is published online by the White House in PDF format (click here). The Bully Boy of the United States released the following statement today: "Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council. Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely -- but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day."

That was all in Thursday's snapshot. No reason for the alleged 'independent' media today to still not know what the hell they are talking about. But have they ever needed a reason to demonstrate why they couldn't get real jobs in the real media? No. On Friday, we addressed how little bits of reality surfaced in the reporting from the MSM, buried deep, but they surfaced. The Washington Post managed to include the following on the treaty:
". . . the pact also allows the Iraqi government to negotiate with the United States to extend the presence of U.S. troops if conditions on the ground are not stable. The Los Angeles Times manages to note: "The pact allows for amendments if both sides agree to them. U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting an extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi forces in charge. 'There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides,' one U.S. official said."

2009 is the only thing binding by the treaty. It is not difficult to grasp at this late date. The only reason not to grasp it is because you don't want to. Liars, fools and whores need to be held accountable. Which is a good time to bring in the Bully Boy of the United States who thinks he can rewrite reality as well. Lauren Sher (ABC News) reports he will appear on ABC's World News Tonight this evening to declare, "I think I was unprepared for war." Which one? Vietnam or Iraq? He continues, "In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack'." Iraq didn't attack the United States and if Gibson doesn't correct Bully Boy on that the whole world will grasp why he spent the bulk of his TV time on a morning entertainment show (Good Morning America) and not in the news department. Repeating, Iraq did not attack the United States. Bully Boy thinks he can lie and get away with it and -- watch and see -- many people will allow him to get away with it. Gibson is a tool, a fool and a tired, tired whore. (He and Goody should go on vacation together.) Gibson asks him what if he'd known there were no WMDs? What if he'd known that? The public record indicates the White House always knew that. The public record demonstrates that. Apparently we're all supposed to forget Paul Wolfowitz' May 2003 statements and everything else reported including Colin Powell's original snarl that he wasn't going to say "this s--t" to the United Nations (he, of course, did). All forgotten because Bully Boy wants to allow that maybe he made a few mistakes. I guess it's easier to confess to mistakes than to war crimes. He truly is the spawn of Tricky Dick. And if you doubt that, UPI reports that while pretending to have some sort of sorrow, he also wanted to insist that Iraq was "his greatest accomplishment" and quotes him stating, "I keep recognizing we're in a war against ideological thugs and keeping America safe." Iraq DID NOT attack the United States.

But Iraq is always under attack and today primarily in Baghdad and Mosul. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports a double bombing at a Baghdad police academy which claimed at least 16 lives with forty-six people injured. Sudarsan Raghavan and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) quote Lt. Ahmad Kadhim explaining that the police academy students "had left their posts to receive their salaries" which makes Kahdim believe, "The bomber seized this opportunity, so it seems the suicide attack was organized. The bomber received information from inside the academy telling him that the SWAT team is not available." Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) reports,"About an hour after the attack, dense pools of blood lay coagulating on the pavement among scattered sandals and combat boots, one of which clearly still contained a blood-stained black sock enveloping a piece of foot. The display light from the top of a taxi lay on the ground, next to a hubcap, a few burned strips of clothing and some torn Iraqi dinar notes in small denominations. As police officers prepared to tow away the damaged cars, a young man with a blue and white plastic sack walked around gathering up scraps of human remains with his gloved hands." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) quotes police recruit Muhannad Mohammed stating, "We were entering in groups, and my shift was made up of 60 men. As I was going inside, I heard a loud explosing. We all rushed toward the scene. It was a car bomb. I was looking to see if any of my friends were hurt as they were many dead and wounded bodies on the ground. Soon, another bigger explosion took place."

The other big attack of the day was in Mosul. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) states the attack was a man who "detonated a suicide vest near a convoy of coalition vehicles . . . killing up to 16." Katherine Zoepf notes the bombing "killed at least 17 people" while the US military claimed only nine and that "differing casualty figures in the immediate wake of a violent attack are not uncommon."

That was not the only violence in Iraq today.

Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi reports a Baghdad bombing "near the house of General Mudhir al Mawla, an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki" which claimed 3 lives and left ten injured, a Baghdad bombing that left four people wounded,

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi reports 2 women shot dead in Mosul and two school teachers shot dead in Mosul

Kidnappings?

Laith Hammoudi reports a doctor was kidnapped in Mosul.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi reports 12 corpses discovered in Kirkuk.


In other news, Reuters photographer Ibrahim Jassam has been a prisoner in Iraq since Sept. 1, 2008 when US and Iraqi military forces drug him from his Mahmudiyah home. He has been held a prsioner since then at Camp Cropper. Reporters Without Borders and Journalistic Freedom Observatory have been calling for his release. Reuters reported yesterday that Iraq's Central Criminal Court has ordered that Ibrahim be released because "there was no evidence against" him; however, "There was no immediate response from the U.S. military to the ruling." Daryl Lang (Photo District News) adds, "Jassam's case resembles those of several other Iraqi photographers and cameramen working for Western news organizations, all of whom were eventually freed. And the decision comes as the U.S. is releasing thousands of security detainees and preparing to turn its much-maligned detainee system over to the Iraqi government."

iraq
nprivan watson
all things considered
jomana karadshehcnn
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudithe washington post
sudarsan raghavanthe los angeles timestina susmanthe new york timeskatherine zoepf

grab bag

Conference makes links to Palestine
by Sabby Sagall
The fourth annual conference of the Twinning With Palestine Network took place in London last Saturday.
Some 50 representatives from 40 groups discussed their twinning experiences, how to strengthen links with Palestine and how to set up new groups.
There was broad agreement that the twinning network’s campaign complements the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s approach of a boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel.
Twinning involves several visits each year to Britain by Palestinian groups – and similar trips by their British counterparts to Palestine.
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.

that is from the socialist worker and i thought i'd open with that. elaine and i are both going to note rodrigue tremblay's 'The New Obama Administration: A Lot of More of the Same' (dissident voice) because we think it is an important piece:

Indeed, after the above revealing incident and after paying his political debts to supporting constituencies, things got even worse with some other nominations to the Obama cabinet, such as the choice of the crucial Defense secretary. Indeed, president-elect Obama—his promise of ending the Iraq war and changing the mindset in Washington that led to it, and the echo of his slogan “Change You Can Believe In” still ringing in our ears—is said to have decided to leave the Pentagon in the hands of Robert Gates, a Bush appointee who does not believe in ending the Iraq war, who believes in the unlawful concept of preventive war and who says that America has the right to “act violently and alone” in the world! Many may see in this nomination a kind of betrayal of his campaign rhetoric and an overt attempt on Obama’s part to please the industrial-military complex.
If the President-elect had wanted to bring Republicans into his administration, while marking a break with the recent past, he could have called on Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a decorated war veteran, to act as Secretary of Defense. He did not. Alternatively, President-elect Obama could have asked Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), a former Secretary of the Navy and a critic of Bush’s Iraq war, to run the Pentagon. He did not, preferring a member of Bush’s team, and this reveals more than anything else Obama’s fundamental priority, i.e. to make himself acceptable to the Washington establishment.
This comes in tandem with the expected nomination of pro-war “stay the course” retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser, even though the general initially resisted Bush’s rush to war with Iraq. The message here could be that, “as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, with Obama, it’s business as usual.” Is this so? When a politician aims at pleasing everybody, he usually ends up pleasing nobody.
So far, even though he ran on an anti-Iraq war platform, President-elect Obama has not filled any important government position with individuals who are known to have opposed the war. Therefore, the question must be asked: Was he really sincere when he pretended to be opposed to Bush’s war, or was he simply playing politics?

and yet some refuse to catch-on. this is politico via information clearing house:

"He is violating the people's mandate," complained Jodie Evans, a Code Pink co-founder who emailed from Tehran, where she was meeting with government officials and other peace activists. "The people elected him over her precisely because of their different foreign policy stances. Here we are in Iran, working to establish citizen diplomacy, hearing the concerns of the Iranian people and how it feels to have [Clinton] say she wants to obliterate Iran. Those comments are not taken lightly and [are] seen as policy positions here."

oh look, it's the old whore from jerry brown's presidential campaign (1992), jodie straw-hair evans. codestink's used-up tampon, jodie evans. 'over her' hisses jodie and, yeah, she hates hillary. she really hates hillary. she's a damn liar. read the next section and prepare to laugh.

Evans, who with her husband helped raise money for Obama during the primary and general election, hinted at how the new president-elect has kept the left-wing at bay since winning the election-by focusing on the issue that first brought them to his side.

her husband? whore jodie got rich by marrying rich and divorcing rich. she drove a u-haul up to her then-husband's bank account. she's not just a whore, she's a dirty old whore.

yes, i am married to a very wealthy man. but i made my own money. and this is our 2nd marriage. when we divorced, i took the summer house and that was it. i didn't ask for anything else including our residence in the city. i made my own money and never attempted to fleece a husband for money.

whores don't have that option. they have to 'make money' by marrying men they don't love and then divorcing those men to walk away with at least 1/2 their money.

jodie never learned how to stand on her own, she always saw herself as an ass to sell. poor thing, her expiration date was reached long, long ago.

go away jodie, go away codestink. we're all sick of you. (and it's gossiped that jodie gave away too much this year. she's now going to have to either tighten up her spending or else find another rich man to marry.)


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Friday, November 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the so-called 'coalition' continues shrinking, the press pimps spin for the White House, and more.

Yesterday, the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement passed the Iraqi Parliament and some form of the treaty was also released in English (finally) by the White House. While the White House issued a fact-free feel-good from the Bully Boy of the United States and the press, always desperate to fit in, copped a few feels of their own, the reaction was not as universal aclaim in Iraq. Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) reports approximately 9,000 people gathered to protest in Sadr City and another 2,500 in Basra. AP adds, "Al-Sadr's statement calls for "peaceful public protests" and the display of black banners as a sign of mourning. But it doesn't repeat his threat to unleash militia fighters to attack U.S. forces if they don't leave immediately."

The treaty passed but no seems concerned and you have to wonder who in the US administration (or the press) is paying attention. The UN warned this month that violence would most likely increase as a result of Parliamentary elections being (finally) scheduled for next year. Was it really the time to antagonize Iraqis further? Will the treaty be looked at in a year or two the same way Paul L. Bremer's decision to de-Baathify the Iraqi government was? Will it be the failure that people point to and marvel over how the US just had to keep pushing, just had to poke the bear. Was it worth the anger and the ill will? No one wants to debate that or acknowledge it. The press is on their cop-a-feel high. Take Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) who breathlessly pants the vote was "historic". Historic? 149 members of Parliament voted for the treaty. There are 275 members of Parliament. That's barely over half. Historic? Really? The Scotsman explains the treaty better than any domestic outlet: "On Thursday, Iraqi lawmakers approved a pact allowing US forces to stay in Iraq for three more years." The domestic press outlets are too busy parroting the White House to note much reality. AFP explains, "The United States on Thursday hailed the Iraqi parliament's approval of a landmark accord for US troops to leave the country in three years, but a referendum on the deal next year could complicate withdrawal plans for the next US president." Ignore the referendum, ignore that the majority of Iraqis want the US out now, ignore that the backdoor deals that the US crafted to push the treaty through are not unknown in Iraq . . . On that last point, Iran's Press TV reports:

"Washington echelons repeatedly threatened to overthrow the Iraqi government if they continued their opposition to the security deal," said Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati. Iraq's al-Morsad reported on Oct. 10 that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had warned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be 'ousted' unless he signed the US-proposed security pact. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has also claimed that the Bush administration had threatened to cut off vital services to Baghdad if it further delayed the accord, saying the threats were akin to 'political blackmail'. "It was really shocking for us…Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing," al-Hashimi said on Oct. 26.

Ignore all of that and ignore that all of this is one big pressure cooker. It really is just like when Bremer disbanded the Baath Party and the real-time press rushed to hail that too. Let's drop back to the April 10 Senate Commitee on Foreign Relations hearing chaired by Joe Biden who noted "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat? . . . [that the proposed treaty requires the US] to take sides in Iraq's civil war [and that] there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. . . . Just understand my frustration: We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." Senator Russ Feingold agreed noting, "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?" But the press, reflecting their 'betters' in the administration, rush to ignore those basic facts. Feingold's question bears repeating, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal?" Apparently the press isn't concerned but they're not free press, they can't report, they can only reflect the spin coming out of the White House.


None more so than the media crack whore Alissa J. Rubin who joins with Campbell Robertson (New York Times) to pimp one lie after another and, most notoriously, the lie that the treaty "goes into effect on Januray 1, 2009, when the current United Nations mandate that currently governs American troop operations in the country expires." Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard, Alissa J. The treaty now goes to the presidency council where the three members may approve it or they may shoot it down (only one vote is required to nix the treaty). Translation, at this point, nothing goes into effect on January 1, 2009. Don't get stoned and try to 'report,' Alissa, it only embarrasses yourself, the paper and everyone else. Who, what, when and where, not predicitions passed off as facts. She's far from the only cop-a-feel-pimper, but she is the worst. The Washington Post manages to include (buried deep) the following on the treaty:
". . . the pact also allows the Iraqi government to negotiate with the United States to extend the presence of U.S. troops if conditions on the ground are not stable. The Los Angeles Times manages to note: "The pact allows for amendments if both sides agree to them. U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting an extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi forces in charge. 'There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides,' one U.S. official said." While the Iraqi Parliament has now approved the treaty, the White House thinks they can get away with circumventing the Constitution and refusing to allow the treaty to go before the US Congress. American Freedom Campaign picks the lack of US Congressional input into the treaty as the abuse of the week:Iraq Parliament to vote on U.S.-Iraq agreement, while Congress has no inputDuring the Bush administration, the power of the executive branch has been greatly expanded. At times, President Bush has treated Congress like an inferior branch of government – and, to be honest, Congress has done very little to demonstrate it minds being treated that way. Case in point: On November 17, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iraq had reached an agreement setting the terms of the U.S.'s presence in Iraq after the expiration of the UN mandate on December 31. Although the Bush administration is calling this agreement a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), a category of international agreement that does not require congressional approval, it is clear that the agreement goes well beyond a traditional SOFA. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has no plans to seek congressional approval. What makes this even worse is that under the Iraqi constitution, this kind of agreement must be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. So we are left with a situation in which the Iraqi Parliament is voting on an agreement that will affect the lives of U.S. soldiers, but Congress has no voice at all in the process. And what is Congress doing about this? Very, very little so far…

And while Biden could express frustration April 10th over the treaty and object to it, while Barack Obama could do the same as he was running in the Democratic Party primary for the presidential nomination, while he could show boat and pretend he shared Hillary Clinton's objection to a treaty without Congressional approval (even becoming one of the 13 co-sponsors of the bill she put foward), while Biden and Obama could run in the general election insisting that the treaty must have Congressional approval, that was then. Every time a Barack wins an election, a Barack loses a spine. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) shares this today: His transition team will now be poring over every word of the document to see what it will mean for those soldiers who may remain in Iraq for up to three years after the expiry of the UN mandate on December 31. Mr Obama, a lawyer, will be anxious to see that American troops remaining in the country do not fall foul of Iraqi or international law.The treaty was yet another 'present' vote for Barack. He couldn't stand up, he couldn't do a damn thing. When you've built your own myth around your so-called judgment and the only thing you have to remotely base that claim on is a 2002 speech, you're paralyzed and that's what Barack's rushing to enshrine: a paralyzed presidency.

Meanwhile further tensions on the horizon as Reuters reports, "Oil contracts signed by the Kurdish regional government (KRG) with foreign oil companies are not recognised by central government in Baghdad, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani said on Friday."

In other news the so-called coalition of the willing continues shrinking. CNN reports Japan is ending their air mission in Iraq as 2008 draws to a close. Takashi Hirokawa and Sachiko Sakamaki (Bloomberg News) note that "Japan Air Self-Defense Force will terminate the airlifts, which started in March 2004 and are designed to help reconstruction work". UPI adds that Yasukazu Hamada, Japan's Defense Minister, "said Japan's air self-defense force mission had helped in imporving the Iraqi situation, Kydo news service reported." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) observes, "President Bush's 'coalition of the willing' is set to all but disappear from Iraq by the end of the year, with 13 countries, including South Korea, Japan, Moldova and Tonga preparing to withdraw their few remaining troops. Britian, Australia, Romania, Estonia and El Salvador are the only nations, apart from the US, that plan to remain after a UN mandate authorising their presence expires on December 31."

Some of today's reported violence?

BBC notes 9 dead (plus the bomber for 10) and fifteen wounded in a Musayib mosque bombing. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the mosque death toll rose to 13 ("12 worshipers" plus the bomber) and notes a Baghdad car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 2 others while leaving fourteen wounded as well as a Diyala Province house bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers with three more injured.


In music news, I Am Three announces there new digital download available here or here which includes the tracks "Burning Me," "Fell Over," "I Try," "Monkeyphonics," "Nostalgia," "Worth It" and "Strange addiction." In addition, Kat reviews Labelle's Back to Now here. In non-music news check out Gaza Strip: a catastrophic human toll - by Mahmud Hams / Agence France-Presse.


iraqwisam mohammedtimes of londondeborah haynesthe new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubinthe los angeles timesthe washington postamerican freedom campaign
mcclatchy newspapersmohammed al dulaimyi am three
labellekats korner

treaty passes, white house releases copy

hope every 1 had a great thanksgiving. we just finished the meal at my in-laws and elaine texted to say c.i. had done a snapshot so i'm getting online really quick to put that up.

the treaty did pass parliament and the white house has released the treaty in english. it's all in the snapshot. this is c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, November 27, 2008. The White House finally releases a copy of the treaty (knowing that everyone's on a holiday), the treaty passes in the Iraqi Parliament (but not by the required number), chaos and violence continue, a war resister seeks asylum in Germany, and more.

"Iraqi lawmakers today approved a pact allowing U.S. forces to stay in the country through 2011 after winning support from skeptics by promising a public referendum on the plan," explain Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) and they go on to note that "[a]ccording to the agreement" troops out in 2011! Which agreement? The Arabic one the puppet government thinks is final or the English one the White House refuses to release because, as Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes." This was noted last week in a Congressional hearing as well so it's really past time to stop speaking of the agreement singular. Salman and Susman do a better job explaining this:The pact, while not explicitly stating that an extension can be sought, allows for amendments if both sides agree to them.U.S. officials have indicated that they interpret that as permitting a possible extension, if security conditions in Iraq are deemed too shaky to leave Iraqi security forces in charge. "There is a provision for extension, by agreement of both sides," one U.S. official said in discussing the pact. Yeah, it's a one-year agreement. Only 2009 cannot be changed or cancelled. Everything else that the White House says is set-in-stone is actually a conditional option that can be wiped away by either side. Today the White House finally released the agreement in English. We'll jump in at Article 30 The Period for which the Agreement is Effective:

1) This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article.

Get it? Paragraph three: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect." Meaning only 2009 is set in stone. It is too late for either party (US or Iraq) to give one year's notice and cancel it in 2009. They can give notice to cancel in 2010 or 2011. The second clause is also worth noting because it weakens the strength of any agreement as well: "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agrement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional proceudures in effect in both countries." That's the aspect that allows for a change and all the 'flowery' respect for Constitutional procedures is hog wash. The Iraqi Parliament needed to have two-thirds of all members (not just members present) to pass the treaty today. They did not have that. According to their Constitution and their laws, that's what was needed. In the US, Congressional approval is needed over all treaties and we know that has not take place. We further know that Barack Obama -- alleged Constitutional scholar -- doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. He show boated and did his little pretty words number while campaigning but despite all his insisting that the treaty would have to come before the Congress -- including becoming one of thirteen co-sponsors on Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting upon that -- he shut his corporate mouth and put his tiny tail between his legs to slink off like the disgusting, cowering trash he is. He's not going to stand up for the Constitution 'later.' He couldn't stand up for it right now.

An agreement built upon a systematic disrespect for the rule of law does not suddenly develop one. An agreement built upon lies does not suddenly embrace honesty. The treaty is built on lies and they include the lies to the American people. Why is the US pursuing this treaty? The White House keeps talking about these 'recent' gains in Iraq. Today is November 27th of 2008. Recent would, for most of us, go back no further than the end of spring. But Article 25 explains Nouri al-Maliki and Condi Rice notified the United Nations that the Security Council's mandate would be cancelled at the end of this year . . . last year. al-Maliki's letter was dated December 7th, Rice's December 10th. 'Recent' events?

The agreement the White House has released may not be the official agreement or the final one. It is the one that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari signed November 17, 2008. The note above their signatures states: "Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic."

That version is published online by the White House in PDF format (click here). The Bully Boy of the United States released the following statement today: "Earlier today, in another sign of progress, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved two agreements with the United States, a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Security Agreement, often called a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. The Strategic Framework Agreement sets the foundation for a long-term bilateral relationship between our two countries, and the Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq. Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself. We look forward to a swift approval by Iraq's Presidency Council. Two years ago, this day seemed unlikely -- but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament. The improved conditions on the ground and the parliamentary approval of these two agreements serve as a testament to the Iraqi, Coalition, and American men and women, both military and civilian, who paved the way for this day."

But wasn't this day 'paved' in December of 2007 when Rice and al-Maliki notified the UN that there would be no extension of the mandate following its December 31, 2008 expiration?

Rumors abound that al-Maliki has consolidated his power with the passage. For the so-bad it's good reporting, check out Alissa J. Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell of the New York Times proving that reporters can serve up camp too. In the real world CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer explains that this means an extension of US troops in Iraq and link includes video. Meanwhile Ruth explained how certain members of the press are actively participating in the manufacture of consent and deliberately distorting what the treaty says (Ruth utilizes Ayad Allawi's "US-Iraq agreement needs work" from the Boston Globe) to make her point. What happens now in Iraq? The treaty now goes before Iraq's presidency council where the president or either of the country's two vice-presidents can veto it. To pass it requires all three give thumbs up. Only one need give a thumbs down to veto.

The referendrum was included in the vote today and the Los Angeles Times notes: "If voters rejected the agreement in the July 2009 referendum, Iraq's government would have to cancel SOFA or demand changes to it. The terms of the agreement allow either side to give the other a year's notice of cancellation, so if Iraq scrapped the pact, U.S. forces would have to leave the country in July 2010."


Today's violence? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing that resulted in the death of 1 police force member, a Baghdadroadside bombing that resulted in the death of an Iraqi soldier with three more wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left sic more people wounded, a Mosul 'sucide' bombing that took the life of the bomber and left six police officers wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of the driver and 2 civilians with 28 more people wounded.

Meanwhile in Germany a US soldier is seeking aslyum. Andreas Buerger (Reuters) reports 31-year-old Iraq War veteran Andre Shepherd self-checked out of the military in 2007 and is now seeking sancturay in Germany where he held a press conference today and declared: "When I read and heard about people being ripped to shreds from machine guns or being blown to bits by the Hellfire missiles I began to feel ashamed about what I was doing. I could not in good conscience continue to serve. . . . Here in Germany it was established that everyone, even a soldier, must take responsibility for his or her actions, no matter how many superiors are giving orders."

In Iraq, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres wrapped up a thee day visit by visiting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani:

Guterres, who was accompanied by Staffan de Mistura, the UN Secretary-General's special representative in Iraq, said UNHCR's operations for uprooted Iraqis had until now focused primarily on refugees in neighbouring states, mainly Syria and Jordan. He told Al-Sistani that the two nations deserved praise for their generosity to Iraqi refugees. UNHCR supports both nations' efforts to assist the Iraqi refugees.
With the improved security situation in Iraq, including in Najaf itself, UNHCR was now moving toward increasing its presence in the country and stepping up its activities on behalf of internally displaced people and returning refugees, the High Commissioner said. The agency is doubling its budget to US$81 million in 2009 and increasing the number of provincial offices from the current 10 to 14, covering the whole country.




iraqjonathan s. landaymcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssefadam ashton
the los angeles timestina susman
the new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubinstephen farrell
cbs news
elizabeth palmer
ruths report

spam, treaty and more

posting early. we're at my grandmother's. we'll by at fly boy's parents tomorrow evening. i made my key lime pie (the thing i always bring!) twice - once for here and once for at tomorrow evening.

i hope everybody's got some downtime this holiday. i used to love e-mail. these days, not so much. 1 of the reasons for the change is due to the never ending spam mails. on that topic, this is from elinor mills' 'Spam increasing again after shutdown of hosting company' (cnet):


Spammers knocked offline two weeks ago when their hosting company, McColo Corp., was shut down are finally coming back online, security researchers said on Wednesday.
San Jose, Calif.-based McColo was believed to be responsible for up to 75 percent of all spam, according to Brian Krebs of The Washington Post, who broke the initial story.
Spam volumes, which dropped about 80 percent when McColo was shut down on November 11, remained relatively flat since then until a few days ago when they started climbing up, said Matt Sergeant, senior antispam technologist at MessageLabs, now owned by Symantec.
Since Sunday, the spam volume has risen to about 37 percent of what they were before McColo was unplugged, MessageLabs said.

they are back up. i thought the spammers were on vacation until the start of this week.

and here's a question: why would any 1 send a resume?

i'm looking at it and the guy is qualified for many things (if the resume is legit) but what job does he think i'll give him?

i mean, i guess we could use a nanny. (elaine & c.i. gifted me with 1 year of a nanny when the baby was born. a wonderful gift. but i'm now nanny-free and really do not need 1.)

i have no idea why a stranger would send me his resume.

it makes no sense to me.

i thought, 'well i did my own p.r. company and maybe he's thinking i could speak to some friends ...' but he's not qualified for p.r. work except at an entry level - which would be an insult to him.

speaking of not qualified, how damn hard is it for the press to do their damn job?

alissa j. rubin? is she going to whore herself out for the white house and repeat every lie they tell about the treaty as fact?

if that's what she's planning to do, she better watch her ass because i'm ticked off and so is c.i. and that's more than enough to get the ball rolling on explaining to america how there is a new judith miller in town.

the press coverage of this treaty has been appalling.

and the way the crap-ass 'independent' media has stayed silent is inexcusable.

the fraud amy goodman hasn't bothered to do 1 segment on the treaty. all this time later. there has been a congressional hearing this month. there are some brave voices (a few) covering the treaty (like chris floyd). but the bulk don't do a damn thing.

when the treaty's rammed through i don't want to hear from LYING ASS amy goodman about how awful it is. she couldn't cover it when it mattered so she can just sit her sell-out ass back down.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, November 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty vote is postponed, the US military announces more deaths, Alissa J. Rubin wins the Who Wants To Be The Next Judith Miller non-reality show, and more.

Starting with the treaty which was due to be voted on today by Iraq's Parliament. Adam Ashton, Jonathan S. Landay and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) become the first of big media to report the reality that there are two versions of the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Of Agreement: the US version and the Arabic version Iraqis peruse. The three reporters explain: "The Bush administration has adopted a much looser interpretation of several key provisions of the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement than the Iraqi government has, U.S. officials said Tuesday -- just hours before the Iraqi parliament was to hold its historic vote. These provisions include a ban on the launch of attacks on other countries from Iraq, a requirement to notify the Iraqis in advance of U.S. military operations and the question of Iraqi legal jurisdiction over American troops and military contractors. Officials in Washington said the administration has withheld the official English translation of the agreement in an effort to suppress a public dispute with the Iraqis until after the Iraqi parliament votes."

The differing versions were noted in the November 19th Congressional hearing. Why others can't report is a question they should have to answer on the record. They should also have to explain why they offered no skepticism (a trait reporters are never supposed to forget to pack) when this is totally expected. During the April 10th US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations hearing the chair, Joe Biden, explained: "The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is." You didn't have to be pschyic, you just had to pay attention. Look at how Ghana Broadcasting Corporation reports on the treaty: "Iraq's parliament has agreed to put a controversial deal allowing US troops to stay in the country for another three years to a public vote." Even accepting that it's a three year treaty (when it's not) they see it as a three-year extension, not as a withdrawal. It takes a lot of stupid to see only what you want to see. Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) proved they're bag-men for the adminstartion but they aren't reporters. They did so in print this morning with nonsense about how the treaty "would be a road map for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in three years." One wonders what they packed for the Green Zone that was so all important it required ditching their skepticism? Online, Rubin showed up this morning to break the news that today's vote has been "delayed by at least 24 hours" and to lie that the treaty "would lead to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in three years." America, meet the new Judith Miller, Little Miss Alissa. Can't tell the truth and can't even remain detached. Alissa whose only concern isn't "What does the treaty say?" but instead, "What does the White House want me to say? Call Crocker! Ask Crocker what I should type!"

She can't read the US version of the treaty. She can't read Arabic and she can't apparently handle the English translation well enough to grasp what it says and what it doesn't. For example, what will or will not happen in 2011 is meaningless in any contract that truly runs for one year (this one runs for 2009) but allows it to be renewed if both parties desire to renew it (for 2010 and 2011) and it can also be modified for both of those years if renewed. So the only thing concrete is 2009. It's tough for glorified general studies majors when they slam into the basics of contract law but real reporters know that they don't just scribble down what the US Embassy tells them. They know that something beyond their education requires they utilize what journalism calls "sources" to walk them through. Alissa can't be bothered.

She doesn't know s**t about how the US Embassies are run throughout the world. What an idiot. Seriously. She's heading the paper's Baghdad division and she doesn't know about US Embassies? Can we say someone's a little too green and needs to be stationed somewhere else to ripen? Every US Embassy, EVERY ONE, has US troops stationed at it to provide protection. EVERY ONE. So, Alissa, how will there be a complete withdrawal of all US troops in 2011 when the US Embassy will remain in Baghdad? How? No, don't go run to Ryan Crocker. You're a reporter and an editor, you damn well should have already known the answer to the question.

CNN lied the nation into an illegal war back in 2002 and 2003 so it's not a big surprise they continue to lie today and maintain that the treaty would "set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops". No, LIARS, it does not. A one-year extension for the occupation of Iraq was needed and that's what the treaty does. Every year, the United Nations Security Council has passed a one-year mandate which legalizes the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. This one expires December 31, 2008. It needs to be renewed or a new arrangement needed to be reached. That it what the treaty covers. And only the first year cannot be broken by either side. So stop lying, LIARS WHO LIED US INTO WAR.


It's a damn shame that so few in so-called independent media will call the treaty out. But remember that in 2011, file it away. Remember who lied in Big Media and remember who couldn't be bothered with the topic in Little Media. Remember that United for Peace & Justice & Uselessness couldn't even mount an objection.


Of organization, only the American Freedom Campaign got active:Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed! We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled. The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties. If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress. Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox Campaign Director American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

And for the beggars of Panhandle Media, let's be really clear that after the treaty is rammed through is TOO DAMN LATE to finally get around to raising objections.
What is known is that there are two versions and they differ. That was known last week and addressed in the Congressional hearing. Credit to Youssef, Landay and Ashton for reporting that now. The tell-Iraq-one-thing-but-do-another aspect was noted by Joe Biden, the incoming v.p., back in April. The UN mandate expires at the end of this year and another yearly agreement is needed to legalize US forces being on the ground in Iraq. A treaty is going through the process in Iraq but in the US the Congress will be circumvented. If the treaty does not go through a one-year extension of the mandate will be sought. The treaty covers only 2009. Every thing coming after 2009 is optional because it can be modified or either party (Iraq or US) can cancel out on the full treaty.

That is known. So the liars and the fools in the press corps who continue to insist that this one-year treaty means ALL US troops withdraw in 2011 have either been played or think they can play you. They got away with it when they 'reported' the lead up to the illegal war and they're getting away with it right now because they're not being called out. Where are those supposed 'brave' voices?

Norman Solomon, who allegedly gives a damn about Iraq, can write two fan club mash-notes to his wet dream Barack this week but can't write a damn thing about the treaty. Remember that. [Cedric and Wally have spoofed Norman's nonsense this week in "Norman tells all!" & "THIS JUST IN! NORMAN SEES PEE-PEES EVERYWHERE!" and in "Norman discovers his girlish side" & "THIS JUST IN! NORMY LOVES BARACK!"]

The vote has been delayed. Allegedly it will take place tomorrow. CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer observes "that the ruling Shiite and Kurdish parliamentary blocs have enough votes to approve the agreement, but the government wants it to win by a convincing margin -- in part because one of this country's most influential Shiite clerics, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has said he can accept the agreement, provided it has broad public support." AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra explains that the Kurdish and Shi'ite blocs have indicated their willingness "to hold a national referendum on the deal in 2009. That amounts to a concession to many Sunni Arab legislators, who have said they would support the security pact Wednesday if it was put to a nationwide vote next year." Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) note demands by Sunni legislators and they observe: "The delay, coming after days of political bargaining and cajoling, underscored Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's concerns about passing the controversial Status of Forces Agreement without a wide margin. The legislature's main Shiite Muslim and Kurdish blocs support the deal, virtually ensuring it would win the 138 votes needed to pass the 275-seat parliament. But Shiite Muslim leaders want to ensure sufficient Sunni votes to guarantee its legitimacy in the eyes of Iraq's Sunnis." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) states, "Sunni Lawmakers also said that their new stipulations, formulated just Tuesday, semmed from discontent over growing Iranian influence across Iraq and a belief that a new administration in Washington may not honor the terms of the deal" and "In exchange for their support for the security agreement, a wide variety of Sunni, Kurdish, and even Shiite parliamentarians are insisting on a political reform package that would increase checks and balances on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-led government. For the Sunnis, fears of empowering Iraq's Shiite-dominated security forces underpins much of the opposition." On the referendum, Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) adds, "But they have agreed to make the pact subject to a national referendum next year that could require a complete American troop withdrawal by July 2010 -- 18 months ahead of what the agreement now envisions. The referendum was a last-minute concession to Iraq's largest Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has long demanded that the agreement be put to a nationwide vote." "Political theater" Rainia Abouzeid (Time magazine) calls today's delay and notes the recent repeated delays in voting on the treaty and explains puppet Nouri al-Maliki "personally lobbied recalitrant parliamentarians at the nearby Rasheed Hotel" today "in exchanges that degenerated into fiery rows, according to a Maliki aide who was present."
What if the vote goes through tomorrow (or some day) and the referendum is attached? Reuters quotes US Secretary of State Condi Rice declaring, "My understanding is that nothing here delays the entering into force of the agreement and that's really the important point." McClatchy's Adam Ashton agrees: "That's because the vote likely wouldn't take place until July, and the security agreement requires each side to give the other notice of at least one year before ending the pact." OH GOODNESS! The treaty can be modified or cancelled! Who would've guessed! (Yes, that point has been made in the snapshots repeatedly for too long to count. That is why it is a one-year treaty, not a three-year one. A one-year treaty is being signed which can be extended if both parties desire to do so.)

What some desire . . . Reports are that the current US Secretary of Defense -- pro-'surge' Robert Gates -- will remain Sec of Defense under incoming president Barack Obama. File it under "Slogans That Bit You In The Ass." Stan and Rebecca covered this topic last night.

While Barack offers more of the same, UN High Commisoner for Refugees Antonio Gueterres is visiting Iraq and declared today, "We are no expanding our presence inside Iraq. We will have a pressence in 14 governorates by early next year, including here in Ramadi." Gueterres arrived in Baghdad yesterday and his visit continues tomorrow. Sarah Chynoweth and Ada Williams Prince (Washington Post's PostGlobal) report on Iraqi refugees in Jordan and note, "Although life in Jordan is free of gunfire and explosions, it is not free from fear, particularly for Iraqi women and girls. If you are an Iraqi woman in Jordan, your life is filled with dread and uncertainty. Since Iraqis do not have legal status there, they are afraid of being caught by the authorities and deported back to Iraq--even though this does not occur very often. Because of this, many are afraid to come forward to receive health care, even if the services are available and accessible.
If you are a poor Iraqi woman in Jordan, your life is even more difficult. There are tremendous barriers to getting adequate health care: women with limited financial resources often have less knowledge of what medical services are available and how to access them." The Iraq War has created the world's largest refugee crisis and over five million Iraqis have been displaced internally and externally. Total Catholic notes, "The flood of Iraqi refugees into Syria has produced big changes for the Church in the country. Caritas Syria, the local affiliate of the international umbrella group of Catholic aid agencies, has expanded its outreach. Today, it manages more than 2 million [British pounds] a year in projects targeting vulnerable Iraqi refugees, and it co-operates in ecumenical programs with the country's Orthodox community." Derek Gatopoulos (AP) notes that Human Rights Watch released a report today that. HRW explains, "Greece systematically rounds up and detains Iraqi asylum seekers and other migrants in dirty, overcroded conditions and forcibly and secretly expels them to Turkey" and offers:

An Iraqi Kurd from Kirkuk who was among the scores interviewed by Human Rights Watch, made five attempts to cross from Turkey to Greece and was beaten and summarily expelled from Greece. He was also beaten and detained by the Turkish authorities. After the Greek authorities finally registered him, they used detention to deter him from seeking asylum. "They told me that if I asked for asylum and a red card that I would need to spend more time in jail beyond 25 days, but if I didn't want asylum and a red card I could leave detention after 25 days. So, I refused the red card and after 25 days they released me. I got a white paper telling me I needed to leave the country in 30 days.
"I wanted to go to another country to seek asylum, but a friend told me that because they took my fingerprints, they would send me back to Athens. I have now been here a month without papers. Now I am in a hole. I can't go out. I can't stay. Every day, I think I made a mistake to leave my country. I want to go back, but how can I? I would be killed if I go back. But they treat you like a dog here. I have nothing. No rights. No friends."

The report is entitled "Stuck in a Revolving Door: Iraqis and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants at the Greece/Turkey Entrance to the European Union" and it notes:
Despite the widespread fear among Iraqis of being deported, relatively few are officially deported from Greece. In 2007 Greece deported 405 Iraqis out fo the 9,586 Iraqis who were "arrested to be deported." Since Greece has not been able regularly to deport Iraqis directly to Iraq, this presumably reflects deportations to transit countries, such as air arrivals from Jordan. Because there are now direct air connections between Athens and Erbil through Viking Airlines, a private Scandinavian company that runs charter flights, it appears that some direct deportations from Greece to Iraq have taken place. However, since this connection is not permanent and flights are often interrupted, Greece has mainly sought to deport Iraqis to Turkey on the understanding that Turkey would be more likely to accept Iraqis and (Iranians) than other nationalities under its readmission agreement with Greece because of the relatively cheap and easy option of deporting them by bus across its southeastern land border.

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 2 lives and left eighteen people injured.


Today the US military announced: "One U.S. Marine and an U.S. Military Transition team Soldier were killed in a small-arms fire attack while conducting a humanitarian assistance operation near Biaj Nov. 25. Two Marines and three civilians were also wounded in the attack. While in the midst of the unit conducting the mission the unit came under fire by two men, one of whom appeared to be wearing an Iraqi uniform. The Iraqi Security and Coalition forces immediately cordoned off the area. 'The attack appears to have been unprovoked, said Col. Bill Bukner, spokesman for the Multi-National Corps - Iraq. 'It is unknown if the attacker was an Iraqi soldier or an insurgent in disguise.' The incident is under a joint investigation." The announcement brings to 4207 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

War resister Robin Long was extradited in July. Last month Gerry Condon (Soldier Say No!) wrote an indepth piece on Long and the movement in Canada:

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who argued fruitlessly five years ago that Canada should join George Bush's invasion of Iraq, was eager to deliver the first deportation of an Iraq War resister. The order to arrest Robin Long came from the top. It was Harper's insurance policy. If he couldn't deport Glass, he would deport Long.While the Canada Border Services Agency shuttled Robin Long from one prison to another, keeping him isolated from friends and supporters, a last-ditch attempt to stop his deportation was mounted by Vancouver lawyer, Shepherd Moss. A hearing was scheduled in Federal Court in Vancouver for Monday morning, July 14. But Robin Long's luck ran out when his case was assigned to Judge Anne McTavish, the author of damaging decisions against Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the first two GIs to seek refugee status in Canada.Canadian authorities had failed to inform Long of his pending deportation, thus denying him his right to appeal. But Judge McTavish refused to delay Long's deportation. The legal reasons for Corey Glass's were not yet published and could potentially apply to Long. Such was the rush to deport a war resister, however, that Judge McTavish was willing to risk having opposing court decisions on the same issue, within a one week period."Here, we've got a deserter for you."Robin Long was not allowed to attend his own hearing and he was not informed of its outcome. Instead, on the morning of Tuesday, July 15, Canadian immigration police drove him to Canada's border with the U.S. near Blaine, Washington, and loudly announced to their U.S. counterparts, "Here, we've got a deserter for you."Stephen Harper and the Bush Administration got what they wanted, international headlines trumpeting, "Canada Deports U.S. Deserter."The Canadian people learned about the deportation of Robin Long from sketchy media reports. The Canada Border Services Agency, citing "the Privacy Act," refused to give the media any details. How was the deportation carried out? Where did it occur? Who handed Robin Long over to whom? Where was Long held in Canada? Where was he being held in the U.S.?The Privacy Act, enacted to protect the privacy of individuals, was abused by the Conservative government in order to isolate Robin Long and keep Canadians in the dark. Why didn't the Conservative government want Canadians to know the details of this deportation? The word "deportation" connotes an unfortunate but orderly and lawful procedure. What Canadian and U.S. authorities did to Robin Long was more like a "rendition," an extralegal government-to-government kidnapping supposedly reserved for terror suspects. Canadians will be outraged when they hear the truth.
War Resister Assaulted and Threatened in Canadian JailsRobin Long was arrested unlawfully on false grounds and for political reasons. He was held incommunicado. Over a ten-day period, he was transferred to three different Canadian jails. In the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre, Long was assaulted twice by a group of prisoners who objected to his dreadlock hairstyle. Although he is short and slight, Long was able to fight off his attackers once, and a guard halted the second assault. But Long decided to cut his hair.

That's the definitive piece on Long and thank you to a mutual friend who first called to ask, "Why are you ignoring Gerry?" and then steered me to that essay which I wasn't aware of. Gerry Condon ends his essay noting that you can write Robin care of Courage To Resist robinlong@couragetoresist.org and that "You can also contribute to Robin's brig account that he uses to pay for phone calls to friends and family." And for those wondering if Robin is due to be released before the holidays, Fort Carson Public Affairs Office's Karen Linne explained here August 22nd that he had been sentenced to 15 months and would be credited for "about 40 days" for the time he was held at the Criminal Justice Center in El Paso County prior to the court-martial.

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

On the issue of equality, Ruth, Kat and Marcia covered the Florida circuit judge overturning Anita Bryant's ban on gay adoption yesterday. Elaine noted US House Rep Rosa DeLauro's Congressional work on breast cancer and Mike covered the judge who yelled "tyrant." Independent journalist David Bacon covers immigration and Obama in a new article at The Nation:


So far, the choice of Janet Napolitano is not encouraging. The Tucson "Operation Streamline" court convenes in her home state every day, and the situation of immigrants in Arizona is worse than almost anywhere else. Napolitano herself has publicly supported most of the worst ideas of the Bush administration, including guest worker programs with no amnesty for the currently undocumented, and brutal enforcement schemes like E-Verify and workplace raids.But Obama does not have to be imprisoned by the failure of Napolitano to imagine a more progressive alternative. In fact, his new administration's need to respond to the economic crisis, and to strengthen the political coalition that won the election, can open new possibilities for a just and fair immigration policy.
Economic crisis does not have to pit working people against each other, or lead to the further demonization of immigrants. In fact, there is common ground between immigrants, communities of color, unions, churches, civil rights organizations, and working families. Legalization and immigrant rights can be tied to guaranteeing jobs for anyone who wants to work, and unions to raise wages and win better conditions for everyone in the workplace.

Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).

iraq
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefadam ashton
gerry condon
robin long
john ross
elizabeth palmerthe new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubinthe los angeles timestina susmancbs news
the washington postsudarsan raghavan
marie cocco
david bacon