"The New Obama Administration: A Lot of More of the Same" (Rodrigue Tremblay, Dissident Voice):
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?
No, there's no huge difference between the outgoing administration and the incoming one and those truly wanting to end the illegal war better cut their ties to the likes of professional apologists like Norman Solomon. If you thought the last 8 years were a battle, you haven't seen anything. We were falsely led to believe that Barack was somehow on our side. He is not. He is the establishment's latest installation whose sole purpose is to place a toothy grin on imperialism. His apologists (Solomon, et al) are as appalling as Peggy Noonan, George Will, et al were in 2001.
The real gift Barack's administration provides the country with is grasping how many on the left are no better than their counterparts on the right. Norman Solomon is the left's Peggy Noonan, gasping in sexual wonder at a president he crushes on. The reality is that there is no independent media in this country, only lackeys desperate to sell out and fearing they'll never be asked to do so.
Richard Rhames has a piece at CounterPunch -- not interested in that S**T. I am NOT interested in hearing you rip apart Bill or Hillary Clinton to make your points about Barack. You all need to grow up. The 90s? They are over. Barack was installed. Quit offering your boring retreads. Quit pretending you're 'informing.' Your using the coming cabinet solely to attack Hillary and Bill. Aim your fire where it belongs, at the fake who got elected.
Instead, you come off like seven-year-olds who, three weeks later, still want teacher to know that Billy wouldn't share his glue stick with you. It's amazing how you all avoid the issue of the Iraq War. A sentence or two is 'addressing' the topic for you. How shameful it must be to wake up each morning and grasp that you're really nothing but the town gossip and you have nothing of value to offer.
I'm done highlighting any piece that links Hillary to Bill Clinton's presidential work in the 90s. The likes of CounterPunch, you may remember, refused to give Hillary credit. In fact Bitch Joanne was among the most sexist of all the Media Whores. Hillary was just having 'tea' they said over and over. It's too damn late to now argue you can hold her accountable for what her husband did as president when you refused to give her credit earlier this year.
If you refused her credit, you can't stick her with the blame. Grow the hell up, every damn one of you. Barack is the problem now and you helped install him. Defocusing on Hillary doesn't show maturity or courage.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
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