AND STILL THEY GATHER.
THE CULT OF ST. BARACK MET FRIDAY AND BARACK DELEGATE AND WOULD-BE- MRS.-OBAMA NORMAN SOLOMON CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
HE ISSUED SCRATCHING POSTS FOR ONE AND ALL THEN STRIPPED DOWN TO HIS G-STRING TO DO "MY OBAMA LOVE THANG, YA'LL! HEE-EE-AAAAY-AAA-AYY!"
NORMAN SOLOMON EXPLAINED THAT BILL CLINTON AND HILLARY CLINTON WOULD BE TRASHED EVERY DAY BECAUSE "IF WE DON'T, PEOPLE MIGHT WONDER IF WE WERE AS SCARED AS WE LOOKED."
TRASHING THE CLINTONS ALLOWED THEM TO IGNORE BARACK, THE ONE WHO IS PRESIDENT.
"IT'LL WORK. IT WORKS IF YOU JERK IT!" HOLLERED NORMAN TO LOUD APPROVAL.
ASKED ABOUT HIS C.D.S. BY THESE REPORTERS, SOLOMON MISHEARD AND THOUGHT WE SAID F.D.S.: "OH I'VE USED A SPRAY SINCE BARACK 1ST BROUGHT OUT THE WOMAN IN ME. I HOPE TO BE AT THE INAUGURATION AND I PLAN TO SING 'THE WOMAN IN ME' TO BARACK. I SEE MYSELF AS LIKE MARILYN MONROE BUT MY BREASTS AREN'T AS FIRM, I'M NOT AS FAMOUS AND NO 1 WANTS TO SLEEP WITH ME. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE JUST ALIKE! MARILYN WAS AN ORPHAN, YOU KNOW, AND I FELT ALONE IN THIS WORLD UNTIL BARACK FOUND ME."
When not blustering in international meet-ups, the administration blusters and bullies with their client-state/puppet government in Baghdad. Asked at the US State Dept today when the vote on the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Of Agreement might take place, spokesperson Sean McCormack declared, "I don't know. Talk to the Iraqis about it, talk to the Speaker of their Parliament. I think they've -- I've seen various news reports about later this week. We'll see." The vote was supposed to take place today; however, AP reported that the Parliament vote on the treaty, scheduled for Monday, has been pushed back to Wednesday and they noted, "Wednesday will likely be the last parliamentary session before the 275-seat legislature goes into recess for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, which falls in the first week of December. Some lawmakers will then travel to Saudi Arabia for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, denying the house a quorum." However, Alissa J. Rubin and Alan Cowell (New York Times) see that date as aspirational, not concrete, and state the vote "may come this week". Aspirational like the so-called 'hard dates' in the treaty. One person asking the hard questions is Simon Assaf (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) who writes of the treaty:
It is being hailed as an honourable end to a disreputable war, the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi cabinet last weekend sets out a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from cities by June 2009, and the whole country by December 2011.
But the deal, the full text of which is yet to be published, will not end the occupation.
By signing the accord the Iraqi government is agreeing to a ten-year mandate for US troops to "guarantee the security of Iraq" against war, coup, rebellion or revolution.
The US will have the right to maintain 50 military bases, store military equipment, control Iraqi airspace, sail warships in its waters and continue its "supervision" of the interior and defence ministries. The military will also have the right to seize any Iraqi "working against US interests". The US has made small concessions over the prosecution of US soliders or citizens who break Iraqi law while not on operation duty -- but this can only be done in agreement with a US military panel.
The deadline for the withdrawal of troops can also be changed if the US or Iraqi government feels that the "situation on the ground" has changed.
Opposition to the agreement threatened to sink the deal. But after threats against the country, which included withdrawal of $50 billion in aid and the sequestration of its assets held in US banks, the Iraqi government caved in.
The powerful Shia religious establishment, headed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, withdrew its opposition to the pact. All Iraqi parties that are allied to the occupation have also dropped their objections.
Britain hopes for a similar agreement guaranteeing its role in the south of the country.
The only voices of dissent to the accords are those of rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his supporters. Sadr has denounced the accords and called a protest on Friday of this week.
Far from ending the occupation, the Status of Forces Agreement would leave the US in almost total control of the country, and guarantee the future of the occupation.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Obama's new strategy as the US faces defeat in Afghanistan
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
Meanwhile Iraqi legislatures have noticed another flaw in the treaty: It does not protect Iraqi assets from seizures to collect on past debts. A rather serious omission but James Glanz and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) are too busy yucking it up in all shades of xenophobia to take the issue seriously. Those wacky Iraqi MPs, they've found another problemw ith the treaty! Ha ha ha, what more do they want!!!!! That is the attitude the 'reporters' display while forgetting to inform readers that Iraqi MPs have had a copy of the treaty for less than a week. The two 'reporters' also need to be knocked off their high horses because the Iraqi MPs are doing what they refuse to: Read the document. How silly of the Iraqis not to just repeat what officials say the treaty says -- you know, what the Times and so much more of the alleged 'free' press has done day after damn day. The 'reporters' find it 'cute' that MPs are worried about this and all but rolls their eyes in print as they explain for the 'thickheaded' that, of course, Nouri al-Maliki will go to the United Nations to get an extension of that via some form of a mandate. Mandate. The UN Security Council mandate expires December 31st and it does offer protection for Iraqi assets. And al-Maliki will go back to have that aspect extended but refuses to extend the mandate itself?
Yes, it now turns puppet Nouri al-Maliki is willing to go to the United Nations . . . for that one aspect and only for that. Saturday, he sent flunkies out to hold a press conference. Campbell Robertson and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) explained that the thrust was a renewal of the UN mandate just wasn't possible, it just wasn't. Why? No one bothers to say. They do bother to repeat the lie that all US troops leave Iraq in 2011. No. If the US maintains an embassy in Iraq, US soldiers will remain there as they do at every other embassy the US has. The contract is for 2009. After the first year, anything can be modified or the contract itself can be cancelled. And that point was confirmed by Adam Ashton who has been reporting for McClatchy Newspapers. Over the weekend, at The Modesto Bee, Ashton wrote a piece on a variety of topics and included that "[t]wo senior U.S. government officials" explained their assessment of the treaty and whether or not it meant a withdrawal of all US service members by the end of 2011, and he was informed that for the US to stay after 2011, "the pact would have to be renegotiated for foreign soldiers and contractors to stay." What????? No, "Of course it means all out in 2011!" That's what the press keeps reporting even though it's not true. The truth is the treaty only covers 2009. Everything else can be cancelled or modified. Jeremy R. Hammond (Information Clearing House) is one of the few actually examining the treaty:
The terms of the agreement effectively allow the U.S. to continue to control billions of dollars of proceeds from the sale of exported Iraqi oil held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It also contains numerous loopholes that could allow the continuing long-term presence of U.S. military forces and would effectively maintain U.S. jurisdiction over crimes committed by American soldiers.
Yesterday the puppet held his own press conference. Reuters reports he said his country would not ask for an extension of the United Nations mandate. Except that we now know he will. Not for the entire issues at stake but for the one issue of protecting Iraqi assets. Apparently, al-Maliki's hoping to whip through the United Nations by getting into the Express Checkout Lane. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports on al-Maliki's efforts to consolidate his power and how the treaty might help him do that even more. Back when he was just a senator and chaired the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden could speak of those dangers freely. Now he's vice president-elect and muzzled. So we'll drop back to the April 10th snapshot to note:
Biden noted the "internal threat" aspect being proposed and how these requires the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment." He noted that it requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out."
"Just understand my frustration," Biden explained. "We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."
[Semi-related, Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) reports on who is on the tax payer dime in Iraq thug wise.] While the Iraqi Parliament gears up on a vote, remember that the White House thinks they can circumvent the Constitution and ignore the Congress. This from the American Freedom Campaign:
Does this sound right to you? Next week, the Iraqi Parliament is expected to vote on whether to approve an agreement setting the terms of the ongoing military relationship between the United States and Iraq. So far, so good. A legislative body, representing the people of a nation, shall determine the extent to which that nation's future will be intertwined with that of another. Of course, one would expect that the United States Congress would be given the same opportunity. That, however, is not the case. Or at least it is not what the Bush administration is allowing to happen. Shockingly, the Bush administration is not even letting Congress read the full agreement before it is signed!
We need you to send a message immediately to U.S. House and Senate leaders, urging them to demand the constitutional input and approval to which they are entitled.
The administration has asserted that the agreement between the U.S. and Iraq is merely a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and therefore does not require congressional approval. Yet the agreement goes far beyond the traditional limits of a SOFA, which typically set the terms for bringing materials and equipment into a nation and outline the legal procedures that will apply to members of the military who are accused of crimes. Believe it or not, the current agreement contains terms that will actually give Iraq a measure of control over U.S. forces. No foreign nation or international entity has ever been given the authority to direct U.S. forces without prior congressional approval - either through a majority vote of both chambers or a two-thirds vote in the Senate in the case of treaties.
If this agreement goes into effect without congressional approval, it will establish a precedent under which future presidents can exercise broad unilateral control over the U.S. military -- and even give foreign nations control over our troops. Congress must take immediate action. Unfortunately, they are about to adjourn for at least a couple of weeks. But it is not too late for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a statement, signaling their strong belief that Congress will not be bound by and need not fund an agreement that has not been approved by Congress.
Please send an E-mail encouraging such action to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid immediately by clicking [here]
This is truly a dire situation and we hope that you will join us in calling for action. Thank you. Steve Fox
American Freedom Campaign
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"NYT laughs at Iraqis"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tina Fey: America's Sour-Heart"