Barack the gift horse

"WIBDI: A Prism for the New Paradigm" (Chris Floyd, Empire Burlesque):
This user-friendly analytical tool provides a quick and easy way of determining the value of any given policy while correcting one's perception for partisan bias. Simply take a particular action or proposal and submit it to the WIBDI test: If Bush did this, would you think it was OK? Or would you condemn it as the act of a warmonger, or a tyrant, or a corrupt corporate tool, etc.? The just-concluded campaign has already shown us how hordes of our quondam dissidents have signally failed this test, excusing, countenancing, defending or even embracing the actions and positions enumerated below by Chris Hedges:
Sen. Barack Obama’s vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout...
To which we could add his bellicose saber-rattling at Iran, his promise to roll back "Russian aggression" and extend war-triggering treaty protection to an aggressive Georgian regime (which cluster-bombed its own people, as we learned this week), his advocacy of destabilizing and civilian-shredding military strikes in Pakistan, his opposition to gay marriage (and campaigning with gay-bashing preachers), and his support for extending the death penalty to cover non-fatal offenses, and so on.Any one of these positions would be roundly condemned by "progressives" if they were taken or advocated by George W. Bush -- as in fact many of them have been.
Indeed, one of the most remarkable things about this campaign is how Obama has managed to embody the deep and desperate thirst for change among millions of Americans -- hence the genuinely moving scenes of jubilation and revived hope that have greeted his victory -- while his actual positions in many if not most key areas track very closely with Bush's, if they are not actually identical with them.Take Iran, for example. Obama has taken what is regarded as a more nuanced position, holding out the promise of direct negotiations with Iranian leaders. Yet he has repeatedly stated what the outcome of these "negotiations" must be: Iran must "abandon its nuclear program." If it does not, then more and more draconian sanctions will be applied, with the clear threat of military action if these don't bring Tehran to heel. This is, chapter and verse, the precise policy followed by Bush, who has also repeatedly offered to "negotiate" with Iran as long as they agree to surrender on every point before talks begin.
And, as with Bush, Obama's stern warnings apply not only to any nuclear weapons program (which even Bush's intelligence services say Iran no longer has), but to any nuclear energy program whatsoever. Obama has repeatedly and consistently said that Iran must not even be allowed to enrich uranium, which is necessary to any nuclear energy program. (The fact that Iran is legally entitled to pursue nuclear energy development under international non-proliferation treaties which it has signed -- while nuclear-armed U.S. allies like Israel and India have not -- is of course entirely irrelevant in the discussion. The Washington hegemon decides which laws apply, and to whom, and when.)

That's who America elected. It's going to be a fun four years. First problem in Barack and Michelle's marriage and, even if she doesn't talk, her friends do and then the scandals really rock America. It's going to be four years of fun.

It will be four years of more homophobia . . . from the left, you understand. The likes of Katrina vanden Heuvel will explain why it's okay when the homophobia comes from the left. To whom? The Nation, in 2004, had a weekly circulation of over 125,000. Today? It's barely at 50,000. It's really going to sink now. It will be back to the meager 12,000 to 20,000 it was at during the Clinton years. The CIA has always kept The Nation afloat (one of those dirty secrets no one's ever supposed to) so it won't go under but it won't have any influence. It will struggle on as a cut-out for the Agency. Only more so than before due to Katrina and her Spy Daddy.

Barack's coronation may also begin to reveal the links of the left and the CIA. One of America's most untouchable subjects. They fund lefty activities. Why? Maybe we'll start pondering that? Maybe we'll start asking ourselves why so many Agency assets are passing as independent actors?

Barack's election really is a gift and we can enjoy it and use it to find out who is bought and paid for and who is independent. As if we don't know already.

Look at Barack as the gift that keeps on giving.



"Iraq snaphot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, November 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the empire gets a new ruler, Nouri al-Maliki claims credit, the treaty remains stalled, Iraqis are far from overwhelmed and more.


Yesterday the US elected a new ruler for the empire, War Hawk Barack Obama. David A. G. Fischer (Dissident Voice) reports on an election night panel independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader took part in:

He goes on to contrast his campaign with that of Obama as not having any hoopla, hope or rhetoric; Ralph continues to campaign on the real issues affecting the people in spite of overwhelming odds -- he is a champion despite Obama's victory.
Along the same line and with applause, his lack of hoopla and rhetoric is still so out-of-sync with the media cartel's disinformation campaign that he was once again ignored by the mainstream. What we have here is a man who refuses to sell out and complacently surrender to the status quo, he is a man based on strong principle who perceives reality for what it is -- a sham directed by the controlling institutions of power, of which Obama is just another cog in their finely-tuned machine.
But what do we really know about Mr. Barack Obama? Here we have a candidate who received hundreds of millions in campaign donations by corporate America and Wall Street. Nader sensibly asks something I've pointed out many times, "Why are the corporations investing in Obama?" By looking at his voting record it is obvious who he supports with approbation for illegal surveillance, a permanent presence in Iraq with a potential spread to neighboring countries, offshore drilling which he used to be against, an economic bailout lacking oversight and transparency, and so forth. Where is this great change that he has been spewing forth to the public for the past twenty months? It is likely just more of what the public wants to hear, but it's apparent by voter turnout that they fail to feel the hot air blowing by them.
Part of the problem with Obama, as Nader points out, is that while Obama is pulled to the right by the corporate establishment, there are no demands being put on him by organized groups such as labor and unions to pull him the other direction and thus "make him better."

Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes this refusal to make demands on Barack as well:

We have learned that Black politicians and activist-poseurs have an infinite capacity to celebrate not having engaged in struggle with Power, and that the Black masses can be made drunk by the prospect of vicariously (through Obama) coming to power. Having failed to make even the mildest of demands on Obama in return for unquestioning support, Black misleadership vowed they would press for firm commitments on issues of importance to African Americans once Obama had passed the final hurdle. (White progressives who were similarly self-neutered during the campaign also promise to begin acting like real people's advocates, any day now...just you wait and see.) We have already learned that "Progressives for Obama" of all ethnicities, who failed to put pressure on the candidate early on, when it might have made a difference, are full of crap.

Yes, they are full of crap. Including the Agency-fronted political closet case who has already shown up with a pep-talk about how the economic crisis is a good thing, a really, really good thing! Those in the closet politically might want to check their language so they don't expose themselves by accident. But lets' move to the economy. The San Francisco Business Times observes, "A day after the United States made history by electing Barack Obama president, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 486 points Wednesday, ending at 9,139.27." The Phoenix Business Journal notes that news as well: "The election is over and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has taken a dive of nearly 500 points." No, there was no magical 'cure' nor was there going to be. Any zowie-wowie article on the election today notes in cautionary tales how things will have to be scaled back or dropped. That's your preparation for expecting nothing from the man who promised even less. Larry Pinkney (Information Clearing House) offers a list of things to expect:

In relative short order - inside the United States itself - under a Barack Obama presidency, the living conditions of the majority of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples will continue to steadily and massively deteriorate while the corporate Wall Street barons prolong their glut of the every day people's finances, resources, hopes, and dreams. Under an Obama presidency those non Blacks who stand in opposition to Barack Obama's de facto pro Wall Street backers and their blood-sucking policies will be branded as racists and traitors, while those Blacks who oppose Obama's policies will be ignored and/or branded as fringe radicals and traitors. Thus, the horrors of the U.S. Empire will continue unabated, and in many respects, under Barack Obama, actually worsen. The blame for the deteriorating economy and continued war will of course quickly be laid by the Obama / Biden regime and the Democratic Party Republicrats on the previous Bush / Cheney regime, despite the fact that it was the complicity of the Democratic Party itself with the Bush / Cheney Republican Republicrat regime that facilitated the despicable policies and practices of the Bush / Cheney regime. The fact is that the Democratic and Republican Parties are de facto Republicrats with the objective of exploiting the majority of people and maintaining U.S. Empire abroad.After the Democratic Party Republicrats so-called election euphoria and celebrating is over, the Obama / Biden Republicrat regime will get down to the business of placing the ongoing exploitation of the every day people of this nation on fast track. The masses of Black Americans, along with the oppressed and exploited Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples of this nation will learn first hand that, notwithstanding the deceptive Obama rhetoric, exploitation nationally and internationally will be intensified. The "clash between those who want freedom, justice, equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation" about which Malcolm X referred, will be intensified under Barack Obama, with Obama representing the interests of the oppressors. The political contradictions in this regard will also be increasingly obvious.Those so-called leftist and progressives who were and are collaborators with U.S. Empire will, for a time, try to pretend that their support of Barack Obama was not a sell out, and that they simply need more time to persuade the U.S. Empire's colored corporate emperor to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White peoples will be enduring an unprecedented rate of economic and social suffering. The anger of the people will ultimately peak and explode, as a result of having bought into false hope and raised expectations. This is precisely why the U.S. corporate government has already made military contingency plans to contain and massively quash dissention within the United States. Barack Obama will serve to provide his corporate / military masters with colored political cover for political repression in this nation; and he will have already provided a small respite of wiggling room for them in this regard. Nevertheless, as brutal reality forces the proverbial scales of blindness to drop from eyes of the masses, it will become crystal clear that the supposed "change" to which Barack Obama referred in his campaign rhetoric, was nothing more than a vicious ruse of double-speak by him, backed by his corporate and military handlers. Indeed, the emperor will be shown to "have no clothes." But what of the fate of millions of Black, White, Brown, Red, and Yellow peoples inside the U.S.? How many horrible sacrifices will have been, and will yet need to be made by the people in order to get the boot of economic blood-sucking and political repression off their / our necks?

Emperor Barack gave his victory speech in Chicago. Gary Leupp (Dissident Voice) decodes it:

"And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces, to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."
In other words: Don't worry, world. The bad old days of George Bush are over.
"To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you."
In other words: Under my administration we Americans will continue to simplistically conceptualize the existence of an enemy that is pure evil and wants to destroy the world, and imagine we can "defeat" it through the War on Terror.


Exit polls demonstrate that the economy was the number one issue, ahead of the illegal war. Going unnoticed is how Iraq was taken off the table by All Things Media Big and Small. When the faux activists of CODESTINK are protesting Wall St. -- not for the war machinery they manufacture and sell but over the economic meltdown -- and Jodi's given everything but her uterus to Barack's campaign, don't pretend anyone's being encouraged to give a damn about ending the Iraq War. To really ensure that it be a non-issue, did someone else take it off the table? Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports that Nouri al-Maliki is claiming to "close aides" that he gave the election to Barack because "he took the Iraqi issue 'off the table' for Obama by endorsing his timetable during his visit to Baghdad in July." Don't be too angry with al-Maliki, CIA assets tend to face very violent rub-outs when they've exhuasted their usefulness and al-Maliki's pretty much squeezed out. al-Maliki reportedly believes he can get further concessions from Barack on the treaty between the White House and the puppet government. At the US State Dept today, Sean McCormack was asked about the treaty and the spokesperson stated that the US has not yet responded (officially) to the amendments suggested by Iraq and that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will convey communications to al-Maliki. As for whether the amendments will fly or not, McCormack declared, "Well, again, I go back to what -- you know, what I've said and what Dana Perino has said over at the White House in terms of the bar for any changes. You know, it's a pretty high bar for any changes. But again, we'll take a look at what is suggested. We're formulating our responses. The Iraqis took some time to think through what they wanted to provide us by way of comments, and we're taking our time in providing that response back to them."

One thing Ambassador Crocker already conveyed to the Iraqi government was, "While this historic election has changed a great many things, we will also have full continuity of policy and purpose as we move through our transition." NPR's Corey Flintoff (All Things Considered) reported that today and on the reaction of Iraqis to the election results with Abu Osama stating, "We don't know whether he'll change now that he's elected" and
Rana Sa'ad Diyab stating she's not seen any improvements in six years and "she'll wait and see whether Obama's policies bring any changes in security or her family's standard of living, but she doubts that will happen." Hameed Kamil Hilal tells Leila Fadel and Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers), "We have seen nothing positive from any American president, and McCain and Obama are two faces of one coin, one policy." Meanwhile Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London) explains that it's not just Iraqis who are doubtful that any 'change' will take place, "On Iraq, the Illinois senator campaigned on a pledge to remove US combat troops within sixteen months, but some military officers privately argue that he will show more flexibility on timing after assuming responsibility for the war started by George W. Bush."

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing where the driver killed him/herself and 4 people with nine more wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing where three people were wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life with three more wounded.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul Tuesday night and, also Tuesday night, 2 corpses discovered outside of Kirkuk.

In peace news, Cindy Sheehan ran for the US Congress from California's 8th district. She lost to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday. While others tried to hop a bandwagon and refused to challenge Democrats, Cindy had the strength to stand up. At Information Clearing House she shares her thoughts:


This past month, I kept on saying to my supporters, staff, interns, volunteers and myself, that no matter what happened on November 4th that we could hold our heads up high and be very proud of our campaign. Until yesterday, I wasn't sure that what I said would be true, but I feel an incredibly sense of peace and pride in our accomplishments. There were so many victories over the last year that the American paradigm of "winner-take all" just doesn't fit.We moved into San Francisco a little over a year ago with less than nothing. We used savings and credit cards to open our office and sometimes to keep it open. We transformed a former "sex shop" to a fully functioning and vibrant campaign office. Our "natural base" never materialized, so we had to build a foundation in less than a few months.In August, we historically gained ballot access as only the 6th independent campaign in California history to do so. Our platform based on humane economics was in place long before the recent collapses and resultant bailouts. Our labor platform was hailed all over the world, while unions here in SF supported the corporate "rescuer" Nancy Pelosi.Cindy for Congress never once sold out our solid principles based campaign and would never sell out the voters of San Francisco like Nancy Pelosi has. Nancy Pelosi ran from my campaign and our demands to debate me and we persevered and did so amazingly well after a near total media black out and several attempts at political intimidation.We got to the end of this stage with a barrel full of integrity and a boatload of dedication and love. Dozens of activists came from all over the country to be here to help us spread our progressive, peace based message and thousands donated to help keep our campaign afloat.We have moved right through November 4th because this is a movement for peace and against corporate control of our political system. Movements can't stop, we must keep moving.

iraq
gary leupp
glen fordblack agenda report
larry pinkney
nprcorey flintoffdemetri sevastopulo
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
corinne reilly
damien mcelroy
cindy sheehan

La la la

Look at the headlines below and pay attention to the ones with times listed. All are from the same Google page. Some say there's a winner, some say there isn't.

Obama seizes command of race for the White HouseThe Associated Press - 1 hour agoWASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama seized command of the race for the White House Tuesday night, defeating John McCain in Ohio and building a near insurmountable Electoral College advantage as he bid to become the first black president.

Obama beats McCain in Virginia presidential vote-Fox Reuters

Obama Wins in Ohio, Dealing Blow to McCain’s Hopes New York Times

The Miami Herald - Christian Science Monitor - International Herald Tribune - Reuters all 177 news articles »

Obama's hometown giddy with prospect of victoryThe Associated Press - 43 minutes agoCHICAGO (AP) - Thousands of Barack Obama supporters in the senator's hometown gathered in Grant Park for a huge election-night rally they hoped would be a historic victory celebration.
Video: Chicago Gets Ready for Obama Rally AssociatedPress
A massive celebration in Chicago Boston GlobeBBC News - Charlotte Post - Washington Times - Chi-Town Daily Newsall 684 news articles »
Voice of AmericaBarack Obama on verge of election victory over John McCainNew York Daily News - 21 minutes agoBY HELEN KENNEDY and RICH SCHAPIRO Sen. Barack Obama holds up an "I voted" paper after casting his vote at a polling place in Chicago, Tuesday.Obama wins Iowa, site of his initial '08 victory ReutersObama has wide support among New York voters NewsdaySin Chew Jit Poh - San Francisco Chronicle - Portsmouth Herald News - The Miami

Multiple Factors Pushed Voters to ObamaWashington Post - 16 minutes agoBy Alec MacGillis and Jon Cohen Sen. Barack Obama capitalized today on a tidal wave of disenchantment with President Bush, deep worry about the teetering economy, and notable demographic shifts away from the Republican Party among young people, ...

America votes: Choosing the course for change _ and fretting about ... Los Angeles Times

Economy voters' main worry, exit polls show CNN

Boston Globe - The Associated Press - Dallas Morning News - DetNews.comall 880 news articles »

So who has won? I'd argue no one has yet. We're going to watch movies. We ordered some Mexican food and it just arrived. Around one in the morning, we'll turn on the TV and look to see if there's a winner.

For those who've forgotten, around midnight in 2000, the press had declared a winner. Thirty minutes later, the race was up in the air again.

I'd worry less about exit polls and more about votes counted.

Whatever happens, as C.I. has pointed out repeatedly, life will continue. This was not a historic election in that both major party candidates were pretty much the same.

I wouldn't worry about it.

"Iraq snapshot"
Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the illegal war is not ending anytime soon judging by most signals, Talabani and Barzani continue to have conflict, the treaty is said to be progressing . . . to a national referendum (?) and more.


In the US voting takes place today. It does not mean life stops or that the entire world does. Gina Chon (Baghdad Life, Wall St. Journal) writes of "Samir Ahmed, a government employee, said he had also once assumed a different U.S. administration would mean a different policy towards Iraq. The presidential race he was thinking of was between Bill Clinton and the first George Bush. Mr. Clinton won, but continue a tough stance against Iraq. Today, he expects that no matter who wins the current race, American policy toward Iraq will remain the same." Mariam Toma agrees and tells Chon, "Both of them will not withdraw U.S. forces. In contrast, maybe the will actually find another reason to stay even longer in Iraq." Meanwhile Stephen Farrell, Mudhafer al-Husaini and Abeer Mohammed (Baghdad Bureau, New York Times) did a snap-poll, "an informal snapshot of Iraqis living or working in the Green Zone. Of 200 Iraqis spoken to after they streamed out of two Green Zone exists into the 'real' Baghdad on Monday, just over a third of them wanted the Americans to leave Iraq as soon as possile while just under half wanted them to stay. The remainder offered options somewhere in between." These are Green Zoners and they do fear the fall of the Green Zone and the puppet government. They're protected while, everywhere else, Iraqis aren't so lucky.

Meanwhile Germany's increasingly pathetic Der Speigel (which has been justifying and supporting the illegal war for sometime if you'd bothered to pay attention) runs the craked musings of Peter Ross Range who just knows Barack will win the presidency and calls for him to "revise" the 16-month 'plan' for 'withdrawal.' PeePee Ross Range is a DLC-er (Der Spiegel calls him "moderate") and he cheerleader the illegal war before it started and justified it for years and years. As late as July 22, 2005, he was whining that 'liberals' and 'progressives' needed to praise Saddam being disposed and be less criticisl ("Liberal's War" published in the DLC bible). January 8, 2004, he was writing that the US shouldn't withdraw or even "pull-back" ("Remembering the Middle Class," ibid). October 21, 2005 PeePee was whining, "Many war opponents, often still traumatized by Vietnam, are preoccupied with what invading Iraq says about America rather than what it does for the Iraqis" ("War of Conscience"). Der Spiegel's become an embarrassment but for those who know PeePee's work, it's probably worth a chuckle -- September 30, 2002, he was wondering if Germany was "Anti-American" or "Anti-Bush"? Translation, the two deserve one another.

Barack's 'plan' for withdrawal? Are we actually back to that lie? Droping back to a Third editorial from June:

Here's the interview Panhandle Media couldn't tell you about:
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

When Power gave that interview, she was still his foreign policy advisor. And backing up her claims that promises weren't really promises, here's Barack speaking to Candy Crowley June 5th on CNN when asked about his 'promise' to withdraw (combat troops):
Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind." Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen. Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. I have to look at this issue from a broader perspective, though.
In April Power tells the BBC that Barack's 'pledges' and 'promises' on Iraq are non-binding and, if elected, he'll decide what to do then. June 5th, Barack echoes that to CNN. And Panhandle Media works overtime to ignore reality. And if you like being played, you'll love what they have planned.

--- End of excerpt. Get it. No 'plan,' no 'promise.' That's reality. So why is PeePee asking Barack to rethink a non-pledge? Because PeePee's audience isn't Barack, it's you. PeePee wants to soften the public up to the idea that Barack in the White House doesn't have to mean an end to the illegal war. If elected, Barack can't break what so many wrongly believe was a 'promise' on his own. He needs a lot of liars who can soften up public opinion.

There's no rush to leave Iraq or even a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi General Nasier Abadi made that pretty clear during Sunday's press conference in the Green Zone. Questioned by the Washington Post's Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the Iraqis would be able to handle "their own internal security . . . how many years are you away from reaching that goal," Abadi tried to distract by listing duties before declaring, "We have no duties or missions to protect the air on the borders of the country. But in case we have this responsibility, there is a brief that -- to the minister of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a reportw ent also to the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and the army's specifics to do those duties?" Asked how many years again, he responded, "Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy, but it's still easier than building naval and air force. The naval force, as I said before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the fourth will arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . . Air Force, the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And that depends on the support and the help that the coalition forces can secure to Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace and territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty." Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011 through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle their own airspaceby the end of 2011?

At the Pentagon today, spokesperson Bryan Whitman informed reporters that there was a plan in place for transition from the Bully Boy to the winner of today's election. A comparison was rightly made between LBJ and Tricky Dick. Nixon didn't end the illegal war, he only continued it. Whitman declared, "One of the important components of this is ensuring that we've identified and highlighted some of the key department events, actions, milestones that a new administration will face in its first 90 days."

Turning to the topic of the Status Of Forces Agreement masquerading as a treaty, CNN reports Sami al-Askari (Nouri al-Maliki adviser) states that the White House "has signaled to Iraqi officials that it is seriously considering proposed changes to an agreement that would set the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq". Al Jazeera notes that al-Askari has no official response from the White House and that Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq al-Hashemi is advocating that the treaty be put up for approval to all Iraqis (not just the Parliament), "This agreement is an important and sensitive subject . . . Iraqis should have their say." Khalid al-Ansary, Missy Ryan and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) add that al-Hashemi is indicateing that the agreement be placed on the ballot with "provincial elections scheduled to take place by the end of January." At which point, who would be in Iraq? The United Nations mandate that governs the occupation expires December 31st at which point, if no new agreement has been reached, there is no legal authority for foreign forces to be on Iraqi soil. The White House has attempted political blackmail insisting that they will cut off this and that if Baghdad won't sign off on the treaty. Richard Tomkins (UPI) notes, "Iraq, with no air control capability at present, nonetheless would have to take over air traffic control and also assume total responsibility for guarding its borders." Al Bawaba notes that today's "Baghdad edition of the London-based newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat said the Americans had agreed to three of the five latest changes proposed by Iraq. It said, quoting unnamed sources, that Washington had dropped the clause that authorises Baghdad and Washington to seek an extension for retaining troops in the cities beyond 2009 and in the country beyond 2011." Maria Appakova (UPI) explains:

However, Americans are in no hurry to raise this question at the U.N. Security Council. Staying in Iraq in accordance with an international mandate is one thing, but having a strategic partnership treaty and receiving dividends from it is quite another matter.
Yet Washington has no choice -- it cannot take offense at Iraqis and pull out its troops from Iraq. It won't be able to attach the blame for withdrawal to Russia, since Moscow does not mind Americans continuing their presence there for a while, and Russia is not in favor of an upsurge of terror in the region, after all.
[. . .]
[US} House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton stated that he is "deeply concerned" with what he heard. Skelton is referring to the agreement's provisions that recently leaked to the press, which include, for example, the Iraqi government's ability to put American servicemen and private security companies' personnel on trial for cirmes they committed while on leave and outside military bases.
It must be said that if this provision really has been included in the draft, it is quite a victory for the Iraqi government.

Meanwhile Gulf Daily News notes continued conflict between the Baghdad government and the Kurdish one with the country's President Jalal Talabani stating the US cannot set up bases anywhere in Iraq "without the approval of the central government" in Baghdad which was a strong rebuke to KRG president Massud Barzani who stated last week that, should the US and Baghdad not sign off on a treaty, the US could just set up bases in the Kurdish region. The tensions between the Kurdish region and Iraq are never not on display. Last Wednesday, at the White House, Barzani was being translated when he cut in to correct the translator:

Translator: And in terms of SOFA, we do believe that it is in the interest of the Iraqi government --

Massud Barzani: Iraqi people.

Translator: -- it's in the interest of this country and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification.

Hoda Abdel-Hamid (Al Jazeera) notes that the US popularity in the Kurdish region is sinking (after years of sucking up) and quotes Barzan Mohamed stating, "America was not honest with the Kurds. They've let them down in the past and they only follow their interests. They can leave the Kurds any time and I don't trust having an alliance with them or even friendship. Yes, they rid us of dictatorship, but they came here to control the region and the Middle East." Iran's Press TV states that Talabani made a point to praise Iran Sunday for their help with Iraq's security and that Talabani also cited Syria and that, on the treaty, Talabani "said that Iraq is a unified country and no one has the right to object the Iraqi government's decision, should it refuse the security deal. Talabani was referring to a recent interview by Massud Barzani, the president of the local government of Iraq's Kurdistan during which he said that the Kurdistan region would provide the U.S. with military bases if Baghdad refuses to sign the security deal with Washington."


We've noted the Iraqi Air Force twice in today's snapshot. 1) It's not due to be ready until 2015 at the earliest and 2) the US is using the lack of one to threaten Baghdad into signing off on the treaty. For those not grasping how "shambles" is too mild a word to be applied to IAF, let's drop back to October 24th. M-NF trumpeted "Iraqi Air Force celebrates another milestone." Sounds good, right? Yeah, as long as you don't go beneath the headline. If you do, you find: "The Iraqi Air Force surpassed another milestone Oct. 22 when an all-Iraqi flight crew took to the air in the King Air Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance aircraft for the first time in support of an Iraqi Special Operations Forces training exercise." Five years after the start of the illegal war (six this March) and that's where the IAF is? They've just finished their first "all-Iraqi flight crew" flight?

Moving on to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bomb wounded three people (all family members), another Baghdad sticky bombing reulted 1 person being killed and seven more wounded, a third Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left five wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in 4 deaths and eight people being wounded and another Baghdad bombing claimed 7 lives with eighteen people wounded. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) updates the seven dead by 4 for eleven and notes that the bomb was "hidden in a car at a bus stop" (wounded rose to twenty-one). Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one person wounded and another Mosul roadside bombing resulted in five people being injured and a Mosul "suicide car" bombing left four police officers injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi police officer was shot dead in Baghdad (three more wounded) and 1 "Lieutenant Colonel working for the ministry of interior affairs" was shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 police officers was shot dead in Mosul while 2 civilians were shot dead in different incidents.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Nineveh Province.

Today Michael Birnbaum (Washington Post) reports that DoD "announced yesterday the death of Pfc. Bradly Shane Colemn of Mratinsville, VA, who had been serving in Iraq" and whose October 29th death is under investigation. His death brings the toll to 14 for the month of October.

Meanwhile Scott Fontaine (News Tribune via Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that the Fort Lewis Stryker's "3rd Brigade is getting ready to make its third deployment to Iraq next year." This as Will Dunham (Reuters) notes, "More than 2 million U.S. children have had parents deployed to fight in Iraq since 2003 or in Afghanistan since 2001."

As Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times) points out, "The fact is, there is plent of mystery -- nad there is only one poll that counts." It is election day and anything can happen. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) will live blog the election tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. EST. So check out her site which will go beyond the D and R to include other letters in the alphabet. Including "G" (Wilder is a Green.)
Starting with independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his running mate Matt Gonzalez. Team Nader notes:

We're having a party!
A Nader/Gonzalez party!
Tonight, we celebrate.
If you are a skeptic, you might be asking -- what, pray tell, are you celebrating?
To which we answer --
The power of the people.
The power of you -- our loyal supporters.
Against all odds -- and in the face of a major media blackout -- together, we have given the American people a choice today.
For the Nader/Gonzalez shift the power agenda.
With eight months of hard work, we have put that agenda on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
Ralph has campaigned in all 50 states.
And together we have organized a network of American citizens to press onward for single payer health insurance, a living wage, a cut in the bloated, wasteful military budget, for a reversal of U.S. policy in the Middle East -- everything the Nader/Gonzalez campaign stands for.
So, today, if you haven't already done so, vote with pride for Nader/Gonzalez.
And then, no matter what the outcome tonight, celebrate!
Congratulations!
With the coming disintegration of two party domination of our politics, you have chosen to be on the winning side of history.
So, celebrate tonight!
And while celebrating, follow Ralph's results on the net or television.
(Unfortunately, most of the major news outlets apparently will not include third party and independent candidates in their result totals -- but Fox News' map apparently will (fair and balanced?) -- county by county and nationwide.
Check it out here.
And finally, only 500 copies left!
Let's move them today!
Get one of the last copies now!
It's autographed by Ralph!
And is bound to be a collector's item!
Of course, we're talking about the 40th Anniversary edition of Unsafe at Any Speed -- Ralph's classic expose of the American automobile industry.
And we have only 500 copies left!
If you donate $100 or more today -- up to the legal maximum of $2,300 -- we will ship to you one of the last copies we have of this classic -- autographed by the man himself.Let's move the last 500 copies today -- and hit our goal of $4 million by midnight tonight.
Onward


Today Nader held his one-word press conference and Jimmy Orr (Christian Science Monitor) provides an excerpt:

What is your opinion of Obama? "Clever."
What is your opinion of Palin? "Developing."
How much money did you raise for your campaign? "Insufficient."
Why do you keep running for president? "Justice."
Will you be elected president? "No."
When do you think you will win? "Sometime."
What should Bush do on his last day in office? "Surrender."
Will Obama be able to provide tax cuts to 95 percent of the population? "Impossible."
What is your opinion of the media? "Servile."

John McCain is the Republican presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is his running mate. John and Cindy McCain have four children and Meghan McCain is the one who blogs online (at McCainBloggette.com and has also written a book for children about her father) and she notes today:

What a long strange journey it's been. Dad I love you so much and am so proud to be your daughter every day. If you need to know why you should vote for Dad, click here. Thank you to everyone for everything... And yes, we will be posting about election night. You didn't think I would leave my loyal readers hanging, did you? Now get out and vote!

McCain - Palin will hold their election night party in Manchester, New Hampshire at Jillian's (50 Phillippe Cote Street) starting at 8:00 p.m. Of Govenor Palin, Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports:

After campaigning coast to coast on Monday, Sarah Palin caught a few winks on a red-eye flight to her home state, where fresh snow glistened in the early-morning moonlight as the temperature hovered around 14 degrees. Palin voted early this morning inside the tiny City Hall building where just six years ago she presided as mayor of this once unknown frontier town outside Anchorage. Proudly donning her "I Voted Today" sticker, the Alaska governor delivered a short statement to reporters and took a few questions before she heads to Phoenix to find out whether she'll become the first female vice president of the United States. It's been a whirlwind couple of months for Palin, who has fallen under perhaps more scrutiny than any vice presidential candidate in the nation's history. But as usual, she portrayed an almost mystifying sense of calm, considering all that she has been through in such a relatively short time.


And Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) notes, "Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney will be spending Election Night with California Congressional Candidate and Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan. There will be live streaming here starting at 8pm."

iraqgina chonthe wall street journal
the new york timesstephen farrell
abeer mohammed
katharine q. seelye
michael birnbaumthe washington postthe los angeles timesned parker
scott conroycbs news
kimberly wilder

Ralph, SNL, more

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Ms. Troll"


Why, it's Robin Morgan, the troll who thinks she controls feminism and can decide who is and is not a feminist. The troll who thinks she can offer some smears of feminists in print (she can be much more catty in private or when explaining to a publishing house why author W shouldn't have a book contract). The unhinged Robin Morgan who thought smearing some feminists as "ex" feminists because they held office in an organization and then didn't. Uh, it's called terms, Robin. Robbie's never held office on her own so she doesn't grasp that you serve a term and then someone else does. If she did, maybe she'd grasp that it's time for her to go away?

I want to stay with comedy.

"McCain scores big on Saturday Night Live" (Jimmy Orr, Christian Science Monitor):

And although Tina Fey has said if the McCain-Palin ticket wins she’s leaving Earth, Palin had a message for Fey while stumping this weekend.
“A little advice for Tina: We wanted to make sure she’s holding onto that Sarah outfit because she’s going to need it for the next four years,” Palin said.

Did you watch the SNL special tonight? It was just as Ava and C.I. warned it would be back in September when the clip show was first being compiled.

"TV: One ticket gets a pass, the other doesn't" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):

As we were told last April by a writer with SNL, the show believed they had comedy gold in skewering Hillary throughout the lead up to the general election even if she didn't get her party's nomination. So the female character they planned to utilize the most is played by one of the show's two female cast members and she'll be off the show shortly. That leaves Kristin Wiig.

[. . .]

You can't comedically cover a political race when you only hurl vective at one side. We have long made that point to friends currently with SNL. As they begin assembling a clip show of election coverage, a few have started to get our point. One admitted he was "dead wrong" about our criticism last year. There's no crime in being wrong. There's crime in not admitting it. We were wrong ourselves. We thought Tina Fey was a performer and not just a "Mean Girl" dashing off bitchy, little lines. But a performer knows they have to like the characters they portray, they know they have to find some element to identify with. We were wrong because we also thought Tina Fey was intelligent. But an intelligent woman doesn't try to return to her old stomping ground after she's moved on in order to steal a role from another woman and an intelligent woman certainly doesn't add to the perception that SNL is in the tank for Barack by making the ridiculous statement that Fey did to the press backstage at the Emmys.

If you watched tonight's special, you know how bad it was. I won't say too much more than that because I believe Ava and C.I. are covering it Sunday and this is their topic. I will note, as a few e-mails here have noted (especially when I've excerpted Ava and C.I.'s latest here), yes, there is a call-and-response going on between Ava and C.I. on one end and SNL on the other. That's why, for example, Ava and C.I. make a "polar bear" joke one Sunday and the following Saturday, it's on SNL or, as above. It's been a little back and forth they and friends with the show have been working.

"Ralph Nader on Civil Service" (Nader - Gonzalez '08):
Press Release
FOR IMEDIATE REALEASE
Contact: Ryan Mehta, 202-471-5833, rmehta@votenader.org

RALPH NADER ON CIVIL SERVICE

Both John McCain and Barack Obama, like their Republican and Democratic predecessors, speak about bringing change in Washington and curbing the influence of lobbyists who prey on Executive Branch departments and agencies. However, singularly missing during their nearly two years of incessant campaigning are references and concentration on the state of the federal civil service and millions of government personnel.

As a full time citizen in Washington for over forty years, I and my associates have contacted, worked with, benefited from, studied, sued, and encouraged civil servants as the determinants of government service to the people, assuming their appointed superiors provide them with the leadership and policies to do so. I have produced consequential studies of civil service and championed the ethical whistle-blowing by the civil servants with protections for both their courage and their upholding the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Our groups have worked with excellent citizen organizations like GAP, POGO, and PEER (see attachment summary of the activities of these groups).

Too often candidates and incumbents running for election to Congress and the Presidency run against what they contemptuously call the "bureaucrats in Washington." Yet they strive to lead these federal workers once elected-- the very ones they have stereotyped and possibly demoralized. We must spread the realization far and wide that few Americans are in such critical positions to safeguard and enhance the health, safety and public facilities as are these civil servants. They are also the people who learn of the perils and problems and know what to do about them before just about anyone else.

They deserve both a production and creative environment where they can assert their talents and commitments to superior government performance as well as being held to high standards of responsibility and accountability.

On the 30th anniversary of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, there is a cause for consternation-- political interference of the worse kind in the non-partisan duties of federal employees, a breakdown in morale and motivation, a growing retirement rate and the insufficient interest in the federal civil service by the younger generation of talented Americans. Though the growing recession, unemployment and distress in the private sector may lead more young people to join the civil service, the wonderful challenges, horizons and importance of such work should be the pre-eminent attraction.

Attached is a summary of some of the work on the federal civil service which I and my groups have done over the years. Also attached is a statement by American Federation of Government Employees on the corrosive effects of the privatization (corporatization) of Federal Services under President George W. Bush. Outsourcing of essential public functions, especially by the Pentagon, the regulatory agencies, and the natural resources and energy departments has reached crisis proportions that cost the taxpayer much more and dissipate if not destroy the framework of open and accountable performances more associated with public government than with proprietary, secret profit-driven corporations.

It is unfortunate that, given the extensive mass media stage, which John McCain and Barack Obama were given day after day that the many-faceted subject and importance of the beleaguered civil service received little mention.

* www.votenader.org/files/issues/civil_service.pdf (summary and statement by American Federation of Government Employees)


I would agree it is appalling how little attention has been given to the civil service by the two media-love campaigns. Tomorrow's the election (unless you early voted or absentee voted) and I will be voting for Ralph.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, November 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the treaty is still iffy, Syria still wants answers, Article 50 comes back . . . maybe, a Democrat 'explains' Barack's mentor, and more.

Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quotes Iraqi news editors Ahmed Abdul-Majid ("Out coverage of the U.S. election is not heavy because we believe that the result of the elections will not have a direct impact on the future of Iraq") and Adbul-Halim Saleh ("In the end, strategic policies made in the United States will not be affected by the changing of the administrations") on the US election and explains, "The agreement, under negotiation for months, would keep American troops in Iraq for three more years but give Iraqis a greater role in deciding U.S. military operations." China's Xinhau notes al-Sabah (Baghdad newspaper) is reporting three of the five amendments have been agreed to by DC. Among the rejected are supposedly the issue of immunity for US troops and among the agreed to changes is that US forces would leave in 36 months and that the treaty will be called "agreement on withdrawal of US forces." Indo-Asian News Service adds, "British Ambassador in Iraq Christopher Prentice told the Kurdish newspaper al-Taakhi that Britain was keen on reaching an agreement with the Iraqi government since 'very little time remains until the end of this year'." The United Nations mandate allowing foreign forces to be on Iraqi soil expires December 31st. Without something in place, there is no legal authorization for foreign forces on Iraqi soil. This mandate covers the occupation, there was no mandate that allowed for the illegal invasion. The UN Wire notes the Washington Times story that "American officials are looking to the UN Security Council to extend the mandate for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond Dec. 31 as direct negotiations with Iraqi officials on a deal remain plagued by 'numerous' differences." At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino addressed the negotiations and talk of seeking an extension on the UN mandate:

We are working towards responding to the Iraqis. Our negotiating team, led by Ambassador Crocker, is finalizing that and we expect to be talking with the Iraqis over the next week. And I think that their parliament is back in session starting next Tuesday, so hopefully we'll make some progress soon. And I think reports about us looking at an alternative are overwritten. We are focused on getting this agreement done. I think the Iraqis recognize that it is their interest, and it's certainly in America's national security interest for us to finalize it. So we're working through all the requested changes that they had, and there might be some that we can support, there might be some that we won't be able to support. I'll just let the negotiators work that out with them privately.

At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Robert Wood said of the SOFA, "Nothing new to report. We're taking a look at the material we got from the Iraqis last week, and we'll be replying in due course. But I don't have anything further than that." Iran's Press TV maintains the treaty allows for attacks on foreign countries: "Under the US -sought agreement, American military and civilians planes will be able to use Iraqi airspace without Baghdad's oversight." The treaty faces more hurdles as a result of the US creating a crisis two Sundays ago by attacking Syria, AP reports that Walid al-Moualem, Syria's Foreign Minister, has used the word "painful" to describe the responses from Syria to the US should the White House and its agencies continue to stonewall regarding the attack. Iran's Press TV quotes al-Moualem stating: "Syria may resort to more painful measures if the United States does not give an official explanation for the attack." Meanwhile AKI reports that the US Embassy in Syria reopened yesterday (it was closed Thursday due to protests and closed Friday as well although the State Dept maintained that was due to a holiday). The US school has been closed and Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) explains, "A belated victim of the United States raid on Syira on October 27 was the American school in Damascus. The institution has been a controversial satellite of US interests in Syria since its founding more than a half-century ago, and it has often been featured as political football during the two nations' turbulent, often bitter relationship." In the US, the White House, Defense Dept and State Dept have refused to speak publicly about the attack -- despite the fact that the US is supposed to be a democracy with leadership answerable to the people -- and Phil Sands (UAE's The National) explains that the stonewalling has taken place in Baghdad as well:


US officials would stand in the safety of the Green Zone and lecture journalists -- lecture Iraqis -- about all the progress that was being made even as, out there beyond the concrete barriers, the country collapsed and descended into a sectarian chaos that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Regardless of what was actually said, however, the Americans were at least willing to stand up and publicly answer questions. It was something. Last week, however, they finally made a mockery of even that basic principle.
The usual press conference was held, as planned, on Wednesday afternoon and was attended, as always, by the dwindling Baghdad press corps. Brig Gen David Perkins, the US military spokesman for Iraq, sat down in front of an American flag and read out a bland statement. It mentioned the Status of Forces Agreement negotiations, interference by Iran and progress in training Iraq's security agencies.He failed to address just one small issue: the cross-border attack into Syria by US forces that took place on the Sunday before.
Given that the airborne assault, which left at least eight people dead, was carried out from Iraqi soil and supposedly targeted an al Qa'eda figure who was helping launch attacks inside Iraq, you might consider it worth talking about. In light of the fact that it was technically an act of war by both the US and Iraq on Syria and made international headlines, you might imagine something would be said. Instead, there was a deafening silence.
After reading his opening statement, Brig Gen Perkins asked if there were any questions. One of the Iraqi reporters duly asked about the attack on Syria. The officer's response was brief and to the point: "Umm," he said, "I've nothing to add on that." A few minutes later, another reporter, this time an American, asked about the poor quality of water supplies in Iraq and the US attack on Syria. Brig Gen Perkins entered into a lengthy treatise on the improving security situation and reconstruction efforts, before stating: "I have nothing to add on any other subjects."
In the course of the press conference, two more reporters asked about the raid inside Syria and Brig Gen Perkins simply pretended as if the questions had not been asked. He did not so much as acknowledge them.

The US Embassy in Syria remains the only US outlet issuing statements. Last week, it announced the Embassy would be closed due to protests (and later that day the State Dept refused to confirm that announcment). Today the Embassy's website displayed: "Public Announcement, November 3, 2008 In response to the Syrian government's request, the American Cultural Center is unavailable to the Syrian public as of October 30, 2008 until further notice, and classes at the American Language Center have been cancelled until further notice." Asked about it and if that meant that the Cultural and Language centers were only closed to Syrians, Robert Wood declared, "Well, that's right. It is closed to the Syrian public. But we still -- we have, you know, officers, officials there." Associated Press' Matthew Lee pursued this.

Matthew Lee: What if you're not Syrian? What if you're -- if you're not a Syrian citizen and you happen to be living in Damascus, can you still go to the American Cultural Center?

Robert A. Wood: Well, if -- it's closed to the general -- the Syrian general public and so --

Matthew Lee: Yeah, but I -- you know, I'm sorry. When the Syrian government came to you, they didn't just say to close it to the Syrian public, did they? They said to close it down.

Robert A. Wood: Well, it's -- let me just say, Matt, it is closed to the Syrian general public, as far as I know, to the general public at large. But our work continues. We have people who are there who work at the Cultural Center, and they'll continue to do their business. But it is closed to the public.

Matthew Lee: So your interpretation of their request is not that they told you to close the thing down, but rather they just told you to close it to the public.

Robert A. Wood: THe only thing I can say, Matt, is it is closed to the public.



Meanwhile IranVNC reports that country's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, visited Syria today for a meet up with Bashar al-Assad (Syrian President) and Faroq al-Shar'a (vice president) during which he declared, "Instead of being a show of American strength aiming to weaken Syria, this action demonstrates Washington's own weakness and desperation." Yesterday Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced: "Syrian Foreign Minister Waleed Al Moallem, made a phone call with His Excellency Foreign Hoshyar Zebari on Saturday 1st November, 2008. Both sides discussed the ways to encircle and contain the repercussions of U.S. military raid against the Syrian region Albu Kamal. The two sides stressed their joint keenness to support and strengthen the bilateral relations between both brotherly countries and peoples and the need to pass the tension on the relations after the raid. The understanding between both sides was discussed on the practical measures to correct the path of Syrian-Iraqi relations and placing those relations in its proper frame to serve the interests of both brotherly countries."

The unrest comes at a time when the puppet government tightens the economic belt (around the neck of the average Iraqi) and when the security situation grows more iffy internatlly. Yesterday the New York Times finds Suadad al-Salhy and Katherine Zoepf explained the price of oil per barrel going up and slightly down has Iraq's concerned about their budget for next year and have cut it by $13 billion dollars. And what do they plan on cutting? It's not detailed; however, Liz Sly (Chicago Tribune) reported: "The Iraqi government plans to cut salaries for the estimated 100,000 members of the Awakening movement whose revolt against Al Qaeda in Iraq played a key role in bringing about the sharp fall in violence in Iraq. The move is certain to aggravate building tensions between the Sunni volunteer force and the Shiite-led government, which assumed responsibility for the Awakening movement from the U.S. military earlier this month."Sly notes $300 is how much members were paid but leaders were paid $400 to $500 a month and that both are being cut. Gen David Petraeus (now over Centcom but until recently the top US commander in Iraq) has credited the "Awakening" movement with the fall in violence as has US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. October 1st, the central government in Baghdad took over payment of approximately 50,000 "Awakening"members and one month later (next checks go out November 10th), they can't even maintain the payment level. It's not as if they didn't know how much the US was spending. So obvioulsy, just as they never planned to absorb the "Awakening" into police, military and security forces, they never intended to pay them. Sly notes the hopes of one "Awakening" who believes the US will pick up the difference. However, that's not going to be the case according to the article. That, however, was supposed to be the case when the handover was made. That was one of the promises the US made to the "Awakenings." Not even a month later and the handpicked and handtrained "Awakenings" are seeing the US go back on their word.

Now might not be the best time for Iraq to monkey around with it's internal security. Iraqi Christians have been under attack since they protested the dropping of Article 50 in the provincial elections law. Hurriyet reports: "Iraq's parliament voted on Monday to guarantee religious minorities seats on provincial councils to be selected next year, but drew ire from Iraqi Christians by setting aside fewer spots than a U.N. proposal had urged." China's Xinhau provides the breakdown the vote (106 out of 150 MPs voted for it) and notes that it's six seats: "A seat will give to each Christians and Sabeans in Baghdad, and a seat for each Christians, Yazidies and Shabak in Nineveh, and a single seat for Christians in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the religious minorities say the number is too small and quotes Yonadem Kanna (Assyrian Democratic Movement) stating, "They failed in the examination of democracy. . . . Getting nothing is better than this insult." On the topic of Iraq's Christians, CNN reports Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has promised $900,000 (US equivalent)will be spent in some manner on protecting Iraqi Christians and that the distribution of the money will be supervised. Saturday in London, there was a demonstration in support of Iraqi Christians. Independent Catholic News reports protestors marched to No 10 Downing St on behalf of Iraqi Christians. A petition was presented and citizens and residents of Great Britain who wish to sign the petition can click here.

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing not far from Sahib Salman ("under secretary of the oil ministry") which wounded Salman and "one of his guards," 4 Baghdad roadside bombings that claimed 6 lives and left twenty-nine people wounded, 2 Baghdad sticky bombings that wounded five people, 2 Mosul roadside bombings that claimed 2 lives and left four wounded and a Baquba roadside bombing that wounded nine people.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 man shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 "tribal sheikh" shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Saadiya and 2 corpses in Mosul.


Turning to the US presidential election. To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) notes, "The only prediction I have made, and with which I shall stick, is that Tuesday is going to be a long, long night." Erbe also notes, "If nothing else is obscene about this presidential election (and plenty is IMHO), then the fact that together the candidates will be spending $8 per vote to win the White House clearly meets and exceeds the obscenity descriptor." Erbe's referring to the Democratic presidential ticket and the Republican ticket only. There are other candidates. But starting with the Republican presidential ticket, John McCain is the nominee and Sarah Palin is his running mate. Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Palin's agenda today was "six cities in five states" and that she flies late tonight back to Alaska to vote Tuesday morning only to fly to Phoenix later Tuesday. At the McCain - Palin '08 blog, Matt Lira offers:

This is a historic election and, because of your activism and support, we will achieve victory on Election Day. Our campaign has defied expectations, not because of beltway pundits, but because of people like you who have always been there when it mattered most.Click here to find your voting location and to get out the vote for John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.

Cindy McCain (disclosure, I know and like Cindy) is John McCain's spouse and they have four children -- one of whom, Meghan McCain (McCainBloggette), wrote the following at her site yesterday:
"America is worth fighting for" is my favorite line of my father's speech. I think it is so poignant, and essentially, it captures the reason why I have always loved, supported and believed in my father. It is why I believe he would be the best President for our country now, at a point where we face many challenges abroad and also at home, where so many of our fellow Americans are going through difficult times. The fact that our country is and always will be worth for fighting for is the essence of why I have been so inspired to participate in this campaign, and throughout this process I have been even more inspired by the people and the places I have encountered along the way, around our great country.
We are truly the luckiest people in the world, and I have been very fortunate to be a part of this experience on the campaign, and to be able to share it with so many of you. The next three days will fly by and no doubt be pretty crazy, so let me just say thanks right now for getting involved too. This is what was at the heart of what I hoped to achieve with my blog, and it has gone beyond my expectations. Stay tuned for more from the trail tomorrow!

John and Cindy McCain issued a statement today: "We offer our deepest condolences to Barack Obama and his family as they grieve the loss of their beloved grandmother. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them as they remember and celebrate the life of someone who had such a profound impact in their lives." Meanwhile Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama finally found an 'issue' he could sink his teeth into: "Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear showing. What's wrong with that? Come on." Come on, indeed. Barack with an issue that matters to him and finally a concrete plan for an issue. It only took until the day before the election for the fashionista and Men's Vogue cover boy to find an issue.

Harold Evans (at Guardian of London) notes the media's attempt to elect Barack:
But the press bias towards Obama doesn't represent a simple revulsion for the Republican party. It was on display in the Democratic primaries with the persecution of Hillary Clinton. Worst of all, in the primaries, the press let the Obama campaign get away with continuous insinuations below the radar that the Clintons were race-baiters. Instead of exposing that absurd defamation for what it was - a nasty smear - the media sedulously propagated it.
Clinton made the historically correct and uncontroversial remark that civil rights legislation came about from a fusion of the dreams of Dr Martin Luther King and the legislative follow-through by President Lyndon Johnson. The New York Times misrepresented that as a disparagement of King, twisting her remarks to imply that "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change". This was one of a number of manipulations on race by the Obama campaign, amply documented by the leading Democratic historian, Princeton's Sean Wilentz. Clinton came close to tears in a coffee shop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, which many thought helped her to win an upset victory there. MSNBC television gave a platform to the Chicago congressmen, Jesse Jackson Jr, where he questioned her tears and claimed that she'd not shed any tears for the black victims of Katrina, and that she'd pay for that in the South Carolina primary, where 45% of the electorate would be African-Americans.
In fact, MSNBC ran a non-stop campaign for Obama propelled by the misogyny of its anchors, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster. Chelsea Clinton joining Clinton's campaign prompted Shuster to report she was "pimping" for her mother.

Meanwhile Democrat Jerry Nadler raised the issue of Jeremiah Wright in Florida. Jake Tapper (ABC News -- link has video) quotes Nadler stating, "Think of the history here. You have a guy who's half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago . . . to start a political career. Doesn't know anybody. Gets involved with community organizing -- why? Because that's how you form a base. OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. . . . Why did he join the church? . . . Because that's how you get to know people. Now maybe it takes a couple years [before Barack's thinking] 'Jesus, the guy's a nut, the guy's a lunatic.' But you don't walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district. . . He didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out."

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Tomorrow Ralph will be holding a one-word response press conference:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Marc Abizeid, 202-471-5833, marcabizeid@votenader.orgTUESDAY, NOV. 4 - Nader to Hold One-Word Response Press Conference
*NOTE CHANGE OF DATE
Special questioning/interview opportunities for members of the foreign mediaIn deference to the sound bite journalism that dominates presidential political media coverage, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader will host a press conference at which he will only issue one-word responses to questions for the first 30 minutes.Who: Ralph NaderWhat: Special One-hour Press Conference. For the first half of the Press Conference, Mr. Nader will answer all questions with just a one-word response. For the second half of the press conference, foreign press credentialed media will be given priority.Where: National Press Club, Murrow Room, 13th Floor - National Press Building, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DCWhen: 12 Noon, Tuesday, November 4

Many people will be breaking the two-party strangle-hold. Team Nader periodically highlights voices who have made the break and here is the latest:
My name is Pat and I am a resident in Nutley, N.J. Today, I took my ten year old son to the Nutley Public Library, where a mock election was being held for all elementary school students. Over the last two weeks, flyers came home with my son's homework about the event. The flyer promoted the event to kids and told them they could have their photos taken with their favorite candidate.
My son, who is aware of my support for Mr. Nader, said me "Dad, I bet they don't have a picture of Mr. Nader there at the library." I agreed with him and he deceided he wanted to participate in the mock election on November first.
We left for the library with our camera in hope of seeing Mr. Nader. Upon arrival, we were directed to the Stockton Room, where the election was being held. As we entered the room, two life sized cardboard cutouts of Sen, Obama and Sen, McCain were in the center of the room. I laughed to myself when I saw that Sen. McCain was standing on the left and Sen. Obama on the right. Mr. Nader's cardboard cutout was nowhere to be found. We were greeted by two women and a young girl, who were poll workers.
They greeted us and asked my son his name. They had him sign his name in a book and proceeded to give him a ballot. This ballot contained only two names: John McCain and Barack Obama. Again, Mr. Nader's name was not on the ballot. The children were not even given a place for write in candidate. After giving my son the ballot , he was directed to one of three voting booths, where he could make his selection. From behind the cutrtain my son called to me, "Hey Dad, how do you spell independent." I told him I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T. He told me he wrote that below the other choices and placed a large check mark next to the word. He also wrote down Mr. Nader's name and placed his ballot in a collection box.
Upon emerging from the voting booth, my son was asked if he would like to have his picture taken with his candidate. He said he would and he stood off to the far left away from the two cardboard cutouts, next to an American flag standing in the corner. As, I flashed the picture, the two women said, "No, stand next to your candidate and take the picture" With that my son said, "But my candidate is not here" All we heard from the women was a puzzled "Oh!!"
Teach civics in the schools.
-- Pat Sweeney Nutley, NJ

Independent journalist John Pilger (Information Clearing House) speaks the harsh truth many so-called 'independent' journalists refuse to:

Obama's job is to present a benign, even progressive face that will revive America's democratic pretensions, internationally and domestically, while ensuring nothing of substance changes.Among ordinary Americans desperate for a secure life, his skin colour may help him regain this unjustified "trust", even though it is of a similar hue to that of Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations for Bush and now endorses Obama. As for the rest of us, is it not time we opened our eyes and exercised our right not to be lied to, yet again?

And finally, Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate. We'll again note Kimberly and Ian Wilder's "Vote Green Party On Tuesday!" (On The Wilder Side):November 1, 2008This is an exciting time for us! The Green Party has never been as relevant as it is today. As Congress offers trillion-dollar bailouts to Wall Street, people living on Main Street struggle to stay in their homes and pay for basic needs. Why is Congress bailing out corporations while the public slides into economic insecurity? Because the industries that will benefit from the bailout are some of the largest campaign contributors to political campaigns.But never fear because you can VOTE GREEN on Tuesday and choose People Power over corporate power. Support Cynthia McKinney for President andRosa Clemente for Vice President; and, support other Green candidates running in your community. Greens are running for office across the country for 60 types of office. Check them out! To find out who's running in your community, click here.Once elected, Greens will not betray the public interest for corporate cash. We accept no corporate money because we believe corporate influence is what's wrong with politics.If you believe healthcare is a right for all, not to be governed by the profit motive of insurance companies, support the Green Party and our campaign for Single Payer Healthcare.If you believe offshore drilling furthers our national addiction to fossil fuels; and want to see positive solutions like renewable energy, local food production, local businesses and better public transportation- Help elect Greens who will make it a reality.If you believe every vote must be counted, that higher education should be available to everyone, that climate change is real, that the war on drugs is racist, and that the privatization of public goods and services is wrong and that we need to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW stand up and support the party that will stand up for you The Green Party.If you want to see a clean, healthy future for our children, make sure we have a strong Green Party today

iraqsameer n. yacoubsami moubayed
liz slythe new york timescnn
mcclatchy newspapers
hussein kadhim
leila fadel
bonnie erbe
jake tapper
scott conroycbs news
brian montopoli
kimberly wilder
john pilger