THIS JUST IN! JON FAVREAU HAD HIMSELF A TRUE LOVE!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   PRESIDENT SWEETIE BARACK OBAMA'S SPEECH TUESDAY IS ALREADY GETTING THE CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL FADS DESERVE.  UNMEMORABLE IS ONE OPINION,  POORLY CRIBBED IS ANOTHER.   THESE REPORTERS DECIDED TO SPEAK WITH PARTY BOI AND WORDSMITH FOR BARACK JON FAVREAU.  FAVREAU INVITED US TO HIS "SWINGING BACHELOR PAD" AND ASKED THAT WE STOP AND GRAB A BAG OF FRITOS AND MAYBE SOME PLAYBOYS.   WHEN THESE REPORTERS ARRIVED, AN ANXIOUS JON FAVREAU ASKED, "WHERE ARE THE SKIN MAGS?"   THESE REPORTERS INFORMED JON FAVREAU THAT WE ASSUMED HE WAS JOKING ABOUT THAT.  "OH, YEAH, IT WAS A JOKE," FAVREAU SAID SOUNDING COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING.   THE "SWINGING BACHELOR PAD" WAS A DOG-RUN ROOM AND A TINY BATHROOM.  THE COFFEE TABLE WAS LITTERED WITH DVD DISCS OF "KING OF QUEENS."  FAVREAU EXPLAINED, "I'M A BIG KEVIN JAMES FAN."   WE NOTED THE 6-FOOT, CARDBOARD CUT OUT OF KEVIN JAMES NEXT TO FAVREAU'S STAINED FUTON.    FAVREAU, EAGER TO BE A GOOD HOST, DEMONSTRATED HOW HE LOVED TO AMUSE HIMSELF WITH THE CARDBOARD CUT OUT.  "I GRAB HIM BETWEEN THE LEGS LIKE THIS," JON FAVREAU EXPLAINED, "AND CUP HIM, PRETENDING HIS HANG DOWN IS GETTING ALL TINGLY.  THEN I DROP TO MY KNEES IN FRONT AND PRETEND I'M BOBBING FOR APPLES.  THEN I PRETEND HE THROWS ME DOWN ON THE FUTON AND --"   WHY DID HE MAKE JOKES ABOUT PLAYBOY MAGAZINES IF HE WAS GAY, THESE REPORTERS WONDERED?   "UH-UH, I'M MAKING A JOKE NOW.  YEAH, THIS IS THE JOKE.  I MEAN KEVIN JAMES.  WHO'D WANT TO GET IT ON WITH KEVIN JAMES?  JUST COZ HE'S SO BOYISHLY HANDSOME AND SO MANLY.  AND THE NUMBER ONE BOX OFFICE STAR IN THE COUNTRY.  KEVIN JAMES DOESN'T INTEREST ME.  NOT REALLY.  NOT MOST OF THE TIME."   THESE REPORTERS BACKED AWAY SLOWLY.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Having failed to snag an invite to this week's earlier power-breakfast with the military, Nancy A. Youssef cracked open her little black book and pulled a few strings.  Why McClatchy's one-time ace reported bothered is the only puzzler?  What she scribbles is an insult to not only journalism but the collective intelligence as well.  Gen James Conway announced (over breakfast tacos?), "The times is right for Marines to leave Iraq."  Nance tosses around the name "Barack" and we're all supposed to see this as some sort "New World Coming" (sing it, Cass).  Hamlet declared, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  Someone needs to explain, "There was a world before this week, Nancy, and it's a well documented one."  Translation?  Thom Shanker (New York Times) was reporting what Nance stumbled upon and was reporting in October of 2007: "The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials."  The same day Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) was covering the story and explaining, "The proposal, discussed at senior levels of the Pentagon last week, would have the Marine Corps replace the Army as the lead U.S. force in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops number more than 25,000 and make up the largest contingent of the NATO-led force there. . . .  Marine Corps officers who have served in Iraq expressed enthusiasm for the idea, which would in essence allow the service to extricate itself from the increasingly unpopular and costly Iraq war. . . . Senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, have not publicly spoken of the issue.  Officers knowledgeable of the Marine Corps' push for the new mission did not characterize it as a formal plan."  August 2008, CNN quoted Conway stating, "To do more in Afghanistan, our Marines have got to see relief elsewhere."  Liam Stack (Christian Science Monitor) in August noted, "American and Iraqi officials announced on Wednesday that United States forces would hand over control of the Anbar Province, the scene of some of the war's most gruesome violence, to the Iraqi military as soon as next Monday.  Most of the departing US soldiers are marines, many of whom will be sent to Afghanistan, where conflict has renewed between NATO forces and a resurgent Taliban."  Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) explained in November, "The Marines have long made no secret of their desire to depart from Iraq and redeploy to Afghanistan, where they were the first conventional U.S. troops in 2001 to invade the country to assist local forces in toppling the Taliban regime."  And in December, Cami McCormick (CBS Radio News) reported, "The Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps says it's 'high time' his troops leave Iraq and take their battle skills to Afghanistan.  'We are a fighting maching,'  Gen. James Conway tells CBS News, and the fight is now in Afghanistan."  None of that 15-month public history makes it into Youssef's 'report.'  Nancy's too busy mouthing, "Now I have a song inside, The birds sing to me, I finally can be, Free to spread my wings in harmony" (Diana Ross' "Every Day Is A New Day").   Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) calls out the nonsense of 'noble war' Afghanistan and addresses Iraq concluding, "There are at least two antiwar protests coming up in spring 2009.  If Barack Obama is not taking the path towards peace that he was elected to take by then, it is essential that those who voted for him with the understanding that US troops would be leaving Iraq (and not going to Afghanistan) attend at least one of these protests.  That is what democracy really means." I've chosen that quote but, for any who don't use the link, Jacobs is absolutely not saying, "Wait until the protests." He is calling for action and calling for it right now. Military Families Speak Out is staging "The Change WE Need" from Feburary 6th to 9th in DC which will include marching from Arlington National Cementery to the White House. A.N.S.W.E.R. is among the organizations sponsoring March 21st "Bring the Troops Home Now" rally and march in DC.  Dropping back to CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn writes, "But credit where credit is due.  On his second day in the White House Jimmy Carter amnestied Vietnam draft dodgers and war resisters."  Then blah blah on Barack.  Jimmy Carter did that, Alex?  No, he sure as hell as did not do what you say he did.  I guess it's easy to treat Jimmy Carter as heroic if you invent actions he never took.  War resisters during Vietnam were draft dodgers and deserters.  The first category -- and only the first category -- got amnesty from Carter.  You can click here for CBC reporting on that (January 21, 1977) and the reaction in Canada.  Also on January 21st -- and note, January 21st.  Barack's praise from Alex is over Jan. 22nd.  His second full day in office. Jimmy Carter pardoned draft dodgers on his first day in office -- and, yes, that is important.  January 21, 1977, The MacNeil/Lehrer Report (now The NewsHour) featured a discussion on Carter's actions that day. Americans for Amnesty's Louise Ransom was vocal about all war resisters (and protestors) needing amnesty.  On the broadcast was Elizabeth Holtzman who was then a US House Rep.  I like Liz, I've known her for many years.  But what she did is something everyone should learn from because it should not repeat today.  She was "pleased" (you know it because she used the phrase "I'm pleased" three times in her first sentence) but, "I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen it extend to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families will continue to be separated from them . . . but I don't think President Carter has closed the door on this category of people."  She didn't think? It's a good thing she didn't wager a bet.  That was it.  Carter didn't do another damn thing.  And those of us calling for more were told, "We can't pressure him.  He'll get to it."  No, he wouldn't and, no, he didn't.  It sure is cute of Alex to come along all this time later and give Carter credit for something he never did.  It sure is cute of Alex to rewrite history.  (In fairness, he doesn't know the history.  Vietnam wasn't personally pressing to him in real time for obvious reasons -- he was Irish, not American, and when he came to the US he was well beyond drafting age for male citizens.)  Credit where it's due?  Jimmy Carter earns no credit for that.  He did as little as possible and he only did that much because he was pressured.  Ford had already offered a program (that you had to jump through hoops for) that covered draft dodgers and deserters.  Carter was running against Ford and there was a real peace movement in America at that time -- not the fake crap offered by the pathetic creatures trying to pass for 'leaders' today.  Demands were made on him. That's the only reason he followed through on draft dodgers (which he had spoken of to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' convention during his 1976 presidential campaign) was because there was pressure.  Gerald Ford was considering pardons for war resisters as he left office but it was thought Carter would take care of it.  Carter didn't.  He only took care of draft dodgers.  And as wonderful as Liz Holtzman can be, she was dead wrong about America 'hoping' Jimmy would find time to revist the issue.  He didn't get serious pressure and he never revisted it.  There's a lesson in there for today's activism -- although that's a joke.  Outside of a few groups, there's no activism going on.  Just a lot of embarrassments (see Mike calling out the Center for Constitutional Rights over their fondling of Barack).  History isn't just a bunch of memorized items.  It either has real-life, current applications or it's trivia and not history.   Wednesday's Free Speech Radio News included this item by Mark Taylor-Canfield in the headlines:   Hundreds of US soldiers have relocated to Canada, Europe or LatinAmerica after choosing not to serve in the US war and occupation in Iraq. Many of the soldiers have gone into Canada by crossing the border between Washington State and British Columbia, which also served as a point of entry for conscientious objectors escaping toCanada during the US war in Vietnam.  Now Project Safe Haven is calling on President Barack Obama to grant immediate amnesty to all US war resisters who have refused to serve in Iraq.  The group is also calling for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and an end to the war in Afghanistan. Other demands include reparations for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and full benefits and healthcare for US military veterans.  According to Project Safe Haven organizer Gerry Condon, the petition was circulated among national anti-war and veterans groups and was delivered to the President-elect's transition team.   Gerry Condon has posted a transcript at his site and you can find out more information there.  We noted here throughout 2007 and 2008 that the Democratic candidates were not being asked about amnesty.  Had they been asked when US House Rep Dennis Kucinich and former US Senator Mike Gravel were in the race, others might have been forced to say they'd at least consider that or look into it.  We noted after the nomination was given to Barack that he needed to be pressed on the issue of war resisters.  In 1972, the peace movement pressured.  McGovern had to promise amnesty and Nixon upped his lies that he was ending that illegal war because of pressure from the peace movement.  McGovern didn't lose because he was forced to publicly support amnesty.  And by McGovern doing that, it made it easier for Gerald Ford to do his program when he became president.  The pressure on McGovern, Ford and Carter was serious pressure and it vanished on Carter shortly after he was sworn in.  Barack should have been pressured on the issue sometime ago.  He wasn't.  That doesn't mean serious pressure can't be applied now.  Especially on a president who claimed (lied) that he was always against the Iraq War and that was proof of his superior judgment.  For those who lacked that superior judgment, you know, mere mortals, Barack should be more than willing to pardon them.  And a real movement, a real peace movement, would be pressuring him to do so.   But we don't have a peace movement in the United States and we don't have a Dove for a president.  We have a Corporatist War Hawk that people are so scared and reluctant to call out.  Which, as Paul Street (ZNet) points outs, was the entire of point:   At the same time, many of his elite sponsors have certainly long understood that Obama's technical blackness helps make him uniquely qualified to simultaneously surf, de-fang, and "manage" the U.S. citizenry's rising hopes for democratic transformation in the wake of the long national Bush-Cheney nightmare. As John Pilger argued last May: "What is Obama's attraction to big business?  Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's [in 1968].  By offering a 'new,' young and apparently progressive face of Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition.  That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US antiwar and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults.  If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent."      Obama's race is part of what makes him so well matched to the tasks of mass pacification and popular "expectation management" (former Obama advisor Samantha Power's revealing phrase). As Aurora Levins Morales noted in Z Magazine last April, "This election is about finding a CEO capable of holding domestic constituencies in check as they are further disenfranchised and....[about] mak[ing] them feel that they have a stake in the military aggressiveness that the ruling class believes is necessary.  Having a black man and a white woman run helps...make oppressed people feel compelled to protect them."   Paul Street is the author of Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics  -- one of three books in 2008 this community found worthy of praise.  On the subject of books, Gerald Nicosia (San Francisco Chronicle) praises two new books today Aaron Glantz' The War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans is the first, "What makes 'The War Comes Home' such a powerful plea is that Glantz admits his initial bias against the vets - they were the ones who caused all the misery among the poor Afghans and Iraqis. But his eventual realization that both reporter and soldier are common victims of a government that wages such wars allowed him to identify with the vets and to empathize with their struggles."  Iraq Veterans Against the War and Glantz' Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations is the second, "Like 'The War Comes Home,' 'Winter Soldier' makes us feel the pain and despair endured by those who serve in a military stretched to the breaking point by stop-loss policies, multiple combat tours, and a war where the goals and the enemies keep shifting. But these books also make us admire the unbreakable idealism and hope of those men and women who still believe that by speaking out they can make things better both for themselves and for those who come after them."       RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "US military announces another death" "Provincial elections loom, Crocker prepares to depart" "I Hate The War" "Smoked sausage, Peppers, Onions in the Kitchen" "Hillary Is 44" "Talking entry" "chris floyd on gaza" "john pilger, robert fisk" "Iraq" "The Princess and the Institute" "Princess Quitter" "Like Levin, I'm troubled by Dennis Blair" "Chicago Dyke is an idiot" "Hillary's First Day As Secretary Of State" "Angel Face" "More trouble coming" "The Deal" "Avoid Max Payne" "Vincent Warren, Man The Hell Up" "THIS JUST IN! A WHITER SHADE OF PALE!" "Colorado turns a Whiter shade of pale"

THIS JUST IN! A WHITER SHADE OF PALE!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   DAVID PATERSON JUST WANTED TO BE A STAR, CAROLINE KENNEDY JUST WANTED TO BUY AN APPOINTMENT TO THE SENATE.  HOW COULD IT HAVE ALL GONE SO WRONG?  (BECAUSE PRINCESS CAROLINE COULDN'T TAKE THE PRESS HEAT.)  BUT ONE THING THAT NEW YORKERS CAN TAKE COMFORT IN IS THEY AREN'T LIVING IN COLORADO.   COLORADO WHERE A SENATE SEAT MEANS SO LITTLE, NOT EVEN A THIRD OR FOURTH KENNEDY COUSIN WANTED THE SEAT ALTHOUGH MICHAEL SKAKEL SAID HE'D TAKE THE SEAT IF THEY'D RELEASE HIM FROM PRISON.   KEN SALAZAR WAS ONE OF THREE LATINO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE.   HE IS NOW INTERIOR SECRETARY AND DESPITE THE TALK OF "HISTORY" EVERY TIME YOU TURN ON THE TV OR PICK UP A PAPER, COLORADO GOVERNOR BILL RITTER ASSUMED THAT, LIKE HIM, MOST PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT COLORADO.  SO THE WHITE GOVERNOR FILLED THE SEAT WITH A WHITE MAN BECAUSE WHAT THE PREDOMINATELY WHITE, ANGLO AND MALE SENATE NEEDS IS . . . MORE WHITE ANGLO MALES.    IT'S HISTORY!  IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S A THROWBACK TO 1878.        FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Thursday, January 22, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, provincial elections loom, a governor 'escapes,' Kurtz and Kimberley offer up some reality, and more.   Starting with presidential children: Qubad Talabani.  He is the son of Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, and he is also the Kurdish Regional Government's DC representative.  The Kurdish Globe reports he's very hopeful of the new administration in DC and quotes him praising Sec of State Hillary Clinton (she was sworn in last night) as well as mentioning US Vice President Joe Biden.  How well placed or misplaced his hopes on that may be are open to debate but someone needs to explain political parties to him.  He states of the KRG, "The government should be left to conduct duties away from political parties' intervention.  We should now clearly show what duties are for the government and what role political parties might have."  A mammoth and most likely impossible project.  And that it's being promoted by Qubad Talabani may be an indication of political immaturity in the KRG (which would be classified thus far as a rebellion and not a revolution).  Massoud Barzani is the president of the KRG and the Kurdish Globe reports he's all for Kurds and Arabs being close due "to the historical bonds of friendship" but it's a funny kind of friendship wherein he rejects Arab councils (he's referring to the "Awakening" Councils).  In the KRG? No.  In "adjacent areas."  While maintaining that the KRG has no interest in attempting to control Mosul, his attempts to dictate what Mosul can and cannot do is an attempt to control.  Mosul is in the Nineveh Province and it is not a part of the Kurdish region.  Barzani states that if they are set up in areas adjacent to the KRG, it will "trigger" violence  That's a far cry from their position -- when al-Maliki was sending troops into Mosul back in May -- of "We, the KRG, support any plan or attempt by the central government and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki aimed at the stabilization of security and enhancement of the sovereignty of the State." When al-Maliki just knew (he was wrong) the provincial elections were just around the corner, he was happy to launch his "clear, hold, build" campaigns.  As the Defense Ministry's spokesperson Maj Gen Moahmmed al-Askari stated June 25th, "The decision of the commander in chief, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, before the end of this month and before the provincial eleciton, we should secure all cities.  Therefore, the Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior put a schedule in coordination with Multi-National Force to clear up these cities according to the importance of the city and its priorities."  Basra and Mosul were targeted in February. Diyala and Maysan would follow.  September 18th, KUNA would report that al-Maliki had pronounced the Nineveh Province operation (Umm al-Rubai'in") a failure: "There are factors that resulted in failure of Umm Al-Rubai'in military operations. . . . We can attribute the successes of other military operations to the effective cooperation by citizens which we did not find in Mosul."   Mosul has an estimated population of 1.8 million, making it Iraq's second largest city (population wise).  It is a hot bed that finally garnered serious attention when the attacks on Iraqi Christians began there last fall.  While talk of 'calmer' and 'safer' abounds, Mosul charted at least 915 reported deaths for 2008 which comes to 76.25 per month.  (That's from a friend at M-NF who says it should track closely with Iraq Body Count.  Translation, the number of reported deaths were probably higher.)  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports on the province's governor, Duraid Kashmoula, who failed and plans to "leave for exile in the semiautonomous Iraqi region of Kurdistan after his successor is picked by a newly elected provincial council."   As late as January 11, 2007, the US military was singing Kashmoula (a former car parts salesperson) 'leadership' abilities.  M-NF posted Maj Roderick Cunningham's report and "Ninewa" is Nineveh Province while "Twitty" is US Col Stephen Twitty and Kashmoula was present for the praise:   Recognizing the similar levels of violence in a comparable city in America, Twitty paints an optimistic picture of the current state of Mosul and Ninewa Province.  "Amdist the turmoil and issues that persist in Iraq, there is a semblance of peace and normalcy in the north. Ninewa's leadership works hard to provide its citizens security, build its economy, and implement programs that will continue to keep sectarian violence from the province," Twitty said.  "One thing we cannot do is attempt to put an American standard on any Iraqi city."   Or, apparently, utilize any form of standards at all.  That is why Parker can offer, "This provincial capital [Mosul] is a shambles, a sea of gray concrete buildings, with police and army checkpoints everywhere, thunderous explosions almost every day.  Services are nonexistent."  And now the soon to be outgoing governor intends to slink off to the Kurdistan region.  It should be remembered that while the Iraqi Christians were being attacked, Duraid Mohammed Kashmoula could hold press confrences (and state at least 3,000 had fled), he just couldn't do anything to offer protection. CNN reported the US military stressed that Kashmoula "has been working with sheiks and local leaders in the area to bring about peace and stability to the city" of Mosul.  Of course, CNN reported that in September . . . 2004.  And when the assault on Mosul was taking place in 2008, Kashmoula was cozy with al-Maliki and giving the green light.  Pepe Escobar (Asia Times)  reported in May, "Tribal chiefs had to plead to Mosul governor Duraid Kashmoula, according to the Jordanian newspaper al-Ghad: 'The Council of Arab tribes in Mosul reported that the government cut off water supplies from the right side of the city for two days as part of a collective punishment policy against Arabs who refused to deny their pan-Arabism, and reject the campaign of 'Kurdishization' of the city'." Escobar noted Sunnis were being driven out by al-Maliki and explained, "No one has asked the million-dollar-question: How come multicultural Mosul - a non-Kurdish city - is now being ruled by deputy governor Khoso Goran, a Kurd?"   The Kurdish Globe quotes Barzani stating today, "I urge you to be wary of allegations that the Kurds have ambitions for Mosul and are on the verge of controlling Mosul.  These assertions could have dangerous consequences.  Incitement to sedition and discord is a heinous crime."   The hopium across the outlets is that Barack is moving, moving on Iraq.  The reality is very different.  William Wharton (Dissident Voice) analyzes a segment of yesterday's PBS Newshour:     More significant resistance will be provided to any serious attempt to end the US occupation of Iraq. Evidence of this was provided during the nightly News Hour program aired on Wednesday January 21st. The segment was entitled "Next Steps for Iraq," and featured the pro-Bush retired General Jack Keane and the Obama-ally retired General Wesley Clarke. Both Keane and Clarke delivered a clear message -- no troop removal anytime soon. Keane, the military author of Bush's "surge strategy," claimed that Obama's campaign pledge to remove troops by 2010 "rather dramatically increases the risks" in Iraq. He recommended a "minimal force reduction" in order to "protect the political situation." Though a 2010 departure was "a risk that is unacceptable," Keane assured viewers that "Everyone knows that we are going to take our troops out of Iraq." The Democratic Party's dog in the fight, Wesley Clarke had little bite as be agreed with Keane's assessment "it [Obama's troop removal pledge] is risky." "When President Obama made that pledge almost a year ago," Clarke claimed, "the context of what combat troops was, was taken from the legislation that was going back and forth through the House and the Senate." He then provided a key qualification, "Distinguishing combat troops from trainers, from counter-insurgency troops or counter-terrorist troops that would go against Al-Quada in Iraq and distinguishing them from the logistics troops." "So," Clarke concluded, "to say that all combat troops will be out in 2010 in sixteen months doesn't necessarily mean that all troops will be out by 2010." If this double-speak was not enough, Clarke then provided another clear signal that the Obama campaign pledge may fall far short of anything resembling a remotely anti-war position. Clarke praised Keane as the architect of the surge policy and "the success that has been achieved through it." [. . .] The Clarke-Keane discussion should be quite useful for anti-war activists. It clearly signals that the "surge-consensus" forged by the Bush administration is still fully operative among the military establishment in Washington. Obama's desire for continuity in military strategy, signaled clearly through his re-appointment of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, should be understood as his acceptance of the positions articulated by Keane and Clarke. This presents a sharp challenge to the anti-war movement.   The 'pledge' was never genuine -- as Samantha Power told the BBC in March of 2008 -- and what he 'promised' at his rallies wasn't even what he was saying elsewhere.  "Combat" troops was always his weasel term.  We'll drop back to the January 15th snapshot:   Today Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker (New York Times) report on the US military commanders contingency plan for Iraq.  Last month Bumiller and Shanker reported on the military commanders presenting a partial drawdown of US troops in Iraq on a slower scale than Barack's 'pledge' of  16 month withdrawal (of "combat" troops only).  No objections were raised over the timeframe by the president-elect but, in case objections are registered in the immediate future, they've come up with an alternate plan they could implement.  This calls for a high of 8,000 a month (more likely four to six thousand) to be pulled.  Using the high figure, 48,000 US service members could be out of Iraq (with at least 30,000 of that number redeployed to Afghanistan) in six months. That would still leave close to 100,000 US troops in Iraq. And there is no full withdrawal planned by Barack. That is why he refused to promise that, if elected, all US troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term (2012). Of course, Barack also rushed to assure the Times (2007) that he would easily halt any drawdown and rush more troops back into Iraq (and no words to declare this a temporary measure) when he sat down with Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny (see this Iraq snapshot and Third's article and the actual transcript of the interview -- a transcript Tom Hayden should have read before humiliating himself in public, then again Tom-Tom seems to enjoy public humiliation). So the article tells you that the military's preparing for all possibilities . . . except the possibility the American people want (and some foolishly believe Barack ever promised) full withdrawal of Iraq.  That is not an option the military even considers.  And the report is backed up by the statements Pentagon spokesperson Goeff Morrell made today, "Our military planners do not live in a vacuum.  They are well aware that the president-elect has campaigned on withdrawing troops from Iraq on a 16-month timeline. . . . So it would only be prudent of them to draw up plans that reflect that option.   But that is just one of the options that they are drawing up."    Officialdom is so confused as to what Barack's doing or will do or may do.  It's all a lot of . . .  To chart the latest, we'll first drop back to yesterday's snapshot for the will-he-or-won't-he:   Back to the US press breakfast with the general.  Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times' The Caucus) notes another point Chiarelli discussed.  Asked about withdrawal of 'combat' troops within 16 months (popularly presented as Barack's 'pledge') his reply included, "You can pick up and leave anything very quickly, but if you do, you'll leave it in a certain condition that won't be as good if you went through a certain deliberative process of working through those issues.  And there's a lot of logistical issues that have to be worked through, and I think everybody has to understand that, that you can do antyhing, but it just depends on how you want to look and what instructions are given for what you bring and what you leave behind and the contition that you leave your operating bases in when you leave."  That's nonsense and Barack could safely withdraw all US troops from Iraq in his first 100 days if he wanted.  Now follow closely because it's about to get confusing.  AP reports that Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri al-Maliki's mouthpiece to the press, has declared that US service members could leave Iraq "even before the end of 2011."  That's what the Status Of Forces Agreement masquerading as a treaty could allow for (departure in 2011) if it was followed and not altered or cancelled (either party can cancel it).  Barack's 16-month 'pledge' (only for 'combat' troops) would mean 'combat' troops would be out in April 2010.  While al-Maliki's spokesperson stated 'sure, leave early,' others sent a different message.  Camilla Hall and Zainab Fattah (Bloomberg News) report Hoshyar Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) disagrees and states, "Nobody can afford in 2009 to contemplate any change in military policy. . . . [We can't] give any impression that there will be draw-downs, reductioins, redeployment because this year Iraq has three elections."  So which is it?  When pressed, al-Maliki's spokesperson has a long history -- as does the puppet -- of backing down.    Aseel Kami and Michael Christie (Reuters) report other 'official' voices has waded in: US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker who asserts that there will be no quick withdrawal and Iraq's Minister of Defense Abdel Qader Jassim who also nixed a quicked withdrawal.    In nine days, 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces will hold elections.  Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports that some voters who supported theocrats in 2005 are voicing their displeasure and notes, "Such rumblings are a warning for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) -- which represent Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim majority -- and the Iraqi Islamic Party which is the biggest Sunni Arab group."  And that byline is actually Missy Ryan, Waleed Ibrahim, Mohammed Abbas, Peter Graff, Aref Mohammed, Khaled Farhan, Fadhel al-Badrani, Michael Christie and Tim Pearce.  Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that 2009 sees an "open ballot" allowing voters to vote candidates as opposed to 2005 and Londono offers this analysis:   The provincial contests, as well as national parliamentary elections expected in the fall, will offer new clarity about the balance of power among Iraq's parties, several of which have resorted to violence over the past few years in the pursuit of power. The relationship between the central government and provincial authorities is also on the line, which has prompted Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to create and fund "support councils" in provinces where his Dawa party does not have deep roots. Maliki also has become the public face of one list of candidates, converting the elections into a referendum on his rule. And whereas Shiite parties joined a grand coalition in 2005, this time they are competing against one another in heavily Shiite southern provinces. Tribal leaders, meanwhile, are attempting to play the role of kingmaker in the south, as well as in other parts of the country. Sunni Arabs, many of whom boycotted the 2005 elections, are widely expected to gain political ground around the country this year. In predominantly Sunni provinces, particularly Anbar, west of Baghdad, established religious parties are competing against secular ones, including some created by former insurgents who were thrust into leadership roles after the U.S. military put them on the payroll and enlisted them to fight the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.   Turning to the issue of violence.   Since McClatchy got in bed with the 'creative' Institute for War & Peace Reporting it's become a real joke and can manage to report from Iraq most days.  How bad is it?   Iraq Body Count (which undercounts) reports 34 dead yesterday and somehow McClatchy missed all of the incidents including 18 corpses discovered Khalis.  We have avoided IBC because it undercounts but, as I noted this morning, we can't be too picky with so many losing interest in Iraq.    Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) does manage to note 1 corpse discovered in Samarra . . . yesterday.  IBC notes that as well.  We may start using them (which would put us one day behind).  McClatchy's already become the new Judith Miller so why not note IBC as well?   In other news, two things are coming back to Iraq.  First, Abu Ghraib will reopen.  Citing KUNA, UPI explains it will now be called Baghdad Central Prison.  Oh, that'll wipe everything away! (That was sarcasm.)  Meanwhile BBC reports that despite such 'state of the art' accessories as "a missile launcher," Saddam Hussein's yacht is being treated like a Ford Fiesta as no one seems overly impressed and refuses to pony up the thirty million bucks: "Baghdad officials have blamed the global economic slump for their failure to find a buyer."   In the United States,  New York Times' Lizette Alvarez reports (via Detroit News), "As the number of jobs across the nation continues to dwindle, more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training."  It's amazing what a bad economy and a bunch of 'hope' propaganda can do for recruitment -- that and the fact that alleged 'anti-war' groups like United for Peace & Justice only do "Counter Military Recruitment" when Republicans are in the White House.  The recruiting news includes the completion of an investigation.  Catherine Abbott of the Army's Office of the Chief of Public Affairs announces, "The U.S. Army concluded a two and a half month investigation into the suicides of four Soldiers assigned to the Houston Recruiting Battalion. . . . The investigation concluded that there was no single cause for these deaths.  Relevant factors included the command climate, stress, personal matters, and medical problems.  None were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)."  The Army plans to offer more "leadership training, suicide prevention/ resiliency training" -- and, yes, that category title alone shows how little the Army comprehends -- and "rcuriter wellness."  Linsday Wise (Houston Chronicle) notes, "[Brig Gen Dell] Turner said his investigation found evidence of a poor command climate inside the Houston battalion, which has lost four recruiters to suicide since 2005, including two who hanged themselves within weeks of each other last year. All four had served in Iraq or Afghanistan before being reassigned to recruiting duty, a job considered one of the most stressful in the Army, especially in wartime."  Wise also notes:   At least 17 recruiters have killed themselves nationwide since 2001. The deaths come at a time when suicides among all active duty soldiers have hit record highs. In 2007, 115 committed suicide, the highest number since the Army began tracking such statistics in 1980. By October of last year, 117 soldiers had reportedly killed themselves.   US Senator John Cornyn was among those calling for the investigation and Michelle Roberts (AP) reports he is now calling "for a congressional hearing on suicides among Army recruiters" who says the investigation found pressures from superiors: "As you might imagine, corners might have been cut -- and they were -- given the exigency of recruiting for war.  The concern is that this is not isolated to a single battalion."   Turning to the media driven frenzy, Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) offers some common sense and sanity, including, "But what's past is prologue. If journalists don't start holding the 44th president accountable -- in the same way the left wanted us to hold George W. Bush accountable -- we will have defaulted on our mission. It will be bad for the country, and bad for Obama."  Also worthy of note, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) breaks through the fog and offers reality:   Eight years ago, the presidential candidate who was actually defeated at the polls managed to be sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States. The election theft was followed by the theft of public assets and blatant law breaking. It is easy to understand why the departure of George W. Bush invokes renditions of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead."   Unfortunately the witch is not dead. The witch is a political system controlled by the dictates of wealthy individuals and big corporations who are all very much alive. They realized before anyone else did that the Republican brand was failing, and a new product line was needed. Fortunately for them, a master marketer came along in the nick of time and allowed them to stay in the game.  One year ago Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses and proved that he could become president. More to the point, he proved that white people would vote for him. Doubt about his chances for success disappeared in the black community and so did any memory of the way that a dedicated mass movement forced change on a nation.  Now Obama is president and there is great joy and excitement throughout most of the country. There is quite literally no way to escape his face or his words. His image is everywhere and casual conversations, church sermons and staff meetings somehow turn into Obama loveathons. It is easy to feel demoralized and defeated when any mention of dogs inevitably turns into a discussion about his daughters' new puppy. The feelings of defeat are magnified by the non-stop barrage of media, endlessly repeating that a wonderful history is being made, and by the very real emotions that the faithful so readily exhibit.   Now that the inaugural parties are over, it is time to reenergize ourselves and prepare for the fight of our lives. If we do not, we are no better than the new president who cynically tells the easily fooled that they shouldn't "bicker" or "wrangle" over their political rights but instead accept the dictates of their overlords. If there were ever a time for righteous wrangling and bickering, it is now.          RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "9 days until provincial elections" "The grown up, the sell-out and the yacht" "things to think about re: gaza" "Liz Smith gets served" "Politics, Animal Collective" "Hillary sworn in as Secretary of State" "The Razzies" "Inauguration realities" "Ted needs to step down" "THIS JUST IN! SOMEONE NEEDS ATTENTION!" "The jealous guy"

THIS JUST IN! SOMEONE NEEDS ATTENTION!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE     BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL 'PROFESSOR' DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW THE OATH OF THE PRESIDENCY, BARACK OBAMA WAS SWORN IN A SECOND TIME TODAY.   WHEN ASKED WHAT THE DEAL WAS, MICHELLE OBAMA EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "SOMEONE MADE THE MISTAKE OF COMPLIMENTING OUR GIRLS AND YOU KNOW THAT MAN CAN'T STAND IT IF HE'S NOT THE CENTER OF ATTENTION.  ALL IT TOOK WAS ONE 'THEY ARE SO CUTE' AND HE STARTED SAYING, 'I AM HISTORIC.  I WAS SWORN IN.  I'LL BE HISTORIC AGAIN.  WATCH ME.  I'M GOING TO BE SWORN IN AGAIN.'  I SAID, 'BARACK, HON, REALLY, GIVE IT UP.' BUT THAT MAN'S VANITY."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   We're still on inauguration coverage and here's how it works.  If you result in 40 or more e-mails complaining (from community members), you get called out.  I'm not in the mood.  And I'm not in the mood to try and answer that many e-mails one on one.  When that many people are pointing to a problem, it will be called out here.  Danny Schechter.  We just rolled our eyes all through 2008 when he pretended repeatedly that he was just calling it like it was and oh, goodness, no favoritism to Barack.  Why does the media suck? It sucks because alleged independents refuse to do their jobs.  The garbage -- and that's the only word for it -- at Danny's News Dissector today is not journalism and it is not independent.  If he can't grasp it, he should substitute "Bush" for "Barack" and he should be appalled by offering up a version of Fox "News."    For starters, Rev Joseph Lowery is not "one of Dr. King's soldiers."  There is NEVER any need to MILITARIZE the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Repeating, NEVER.  That is appalling and there's no excuse for it.  Not even that Danny's giddy over Barack.  The US is in two wars with Barack's advisors already itching for two more.  Stop trying to turn our civil society into the military.  And on Lowery, again refer to Kimberly Wilder's post at On The Wilder Side.   Meanwhile, it's always great -- and oh, so rare -- when Danny manages to quote a woman at his blog, but possibly stand-up comics who don't know what the hell they're talking about should be avoided?    Jessi Klein?  Doesn't know what she's talking about.  And Danny should know that.  Long before John Roberts, Chief Justice, screwed up the oath, Barack had already done that.  And, big point, I'd be awfully careful making fun of John Roberts.  Not out of fear that he or his minions would come after but due to questions about Roberts' health which swirl around DC.  Also true is the oath isn't that difficult and the presumably healthy Barack has no excuse  for messing it up.  Jessi wants to ignore that.  She wants to say it's "perfectly symbolic" because of who appointed him.  And Danny apparently agrees.    Roberts -- whom this site LOUDLY opposed -- was confirmed by the  Senate. Barack's buddy Cass Sunstein (currently married to War Monger and Our Modern Day Carrie Nation Samantha Power) pimped Roberts hard.  Barack obviously loves Cass' 'judgment' since he's named Cass to head Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.    Barack voted against Roberts while also leading the public argument of "WE CAN'T FILIBUSTER!"  The Democrats could have kept Roberts off the bench.  They did not do so. The Senate confirmed Roberts: 78 voted for Roberts, 22 voted against.  Who voted for Roberts among Democrats?  Well Robert Byrd among others, Russ Feingold, Kent Conrad, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar (whom Barack nominated to be Sec of Interior and whom the Senate confirmed in the post yesterday), Herb Kohl, Blanche Lincoln -- we can go on and on.  Only 22 senators voted against Roberts (all Democrats).  The Democrats had a bloc of 45 votes at that time (44 Dems plus independent Jim Jeffords). When half of them voted to confirm him and when the Dems would not filibuster the nomination, Roberts sitting on the Court -- presiding over it -- is as much their fault as the Republicans.  That's reality in The Land of Grown Ups.      Barack said what on the Senate floor about his vote?  "Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearigns, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.  Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the termperament that makes for a good judge.  He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view."  Barack continued on and on.   That's a little more complicated than Jessi Klein and Danny Schechter want to make it.  But Barack's 2008 campaign ran on that sort of simplification.  Danny, it's "Jessi" and writing two episodes (two bad episodes, in fact) of Samantha Who? did not make Jessi a political scholar or, for that matter, informed.  But then you knew she wasn't informed when you read her.  It failed as political criticism and, like so much of her writing, it failed as comedy.  Stick to drooling over David Gergen, Jessi.     It was "stirring" -- gushes Danny of the inauguration -- of the pomp and assholeness of it all.  (And that's true of every inauguration.)  He confesses Iran's PRESS TV didn't "share my enthusiasm" and that an interviewer for South Africa media "was more focused on what policies, if any, would shift."  That should have been the first sign that there's a problem with your reaction.    We could go line by line but we're wrapping up.  I will note that I attended the inauguration to see Joe Biden sworn in.  I didn't feel the need to go goo-goo-gaa-gaa.  I haven't written about it and don't intend to.  I'll leave the mash notes to our so-called 'independent' media.   Danny quotes AP (though it's not clear at his website that he's doing that) "Not since the September 2001 terrorist attacks have so many television networks shown such a unity of purpose, this time for a moment of hope."  Manufacturing of consent and Danny toiled in the TV industry long enough to grasp that without my pointing it out.  Then it's time for him to provide the transcript to the bad poem.  It's a really bad poem because it's neither the 19th nor 20th century currently.    For a supposed new day dawning (those words top Danny's site currently), trying writing about today and not nostalgia.  What's really sad is Alexander doesn't even grasp that her Norman Rockwell garbage is neither realistic nor poetic.    She's got a teacher telling students to "take out your pencils" -- take out your pencils?  She apparently thinks it is 1899 and not 2009. She's then off to "dirt roads" and "highways."  She apparently even pre-dates the creation of the nation's interstates.   With no sense of irony, Danny then quotes Michael Parenti on, among other things, "conservative forces" who "continue to reject . . . publicly funded campaigns."  Who rejected public money?  Oh, yeah, War Hawk Corporatist Barack Obama.      To Danny's e-mailer from Denmark, Barack Obama is not your president.  I am so sorry that you are so ashamed of your own country which you must think is pathetic and backwards.  But that's your problem.  This goes for people in Kenya (non-Obama family members), France and elswhere.  Barack is a citizen of the United States, elected to be the president of the United States.  Denmark and all the rest, don't whine about the US always trying to throw its weight around when your PATHETIC LIVES are so empty that all you can do is obsess over another country's leader.    It really wasn't cute in Breaking Away when Dave was obsessed with a country other than his own, when he need to pretend he's from that country.  It was seen as adolescent and embarrassing and it's the main reason the box office for the film was so poor and why it ended up on NBC (broadcast TV) so quickly that it couldn't even go back into theaters after its Oscar win for best screenplay.  No one wants that crap.  No one wants some whiney ass obsessing about another country.  If you loathe Denmark so much, work on improving it.  If you're tired of the US throwing its weight around, stop hero worshipping the country.    Is this the same crowd that worships Prince Harry and gets out the scones (even though they're not British or part of the United Kingdom) and tea for their 'wedding parties' anytime HRH has a family member getting married?  It's pathetic.  Do you not have lives to live?  They're the equivalent of rubber neckers passing a traffic accident but with their pinkies lifted.   John Pilger actually is independent and you can find him explain Barack here and here and here and here and here.  And you can find Danny telling the same or similar truths . . .   Where?     And now we move on to Liz Smith.  Liz apparently missed the news of the actor who will never play gay (because he is and he's in the closet) who got drunk last night at a ball,  mistook a high school junior for a trick and caused an ugly, ugly scene (that only got worse when the parents -- part of official Washington -- ended up involved).  Or maybe she's ignoring that scoop to cover for the actor?  I have no idea.  But I know what she's dishing out today is GARBAGE and needs to be called out. Liz wants everyone to leave Barry alone.  He's "historic" and people need to get out of his way, says the tall Texan before explaining:   I'm more worried about the Democrats and their mumbling about taking members of the Bush administration -- perhaps even the ex-president himself -- to legal task for eight years of ineptitude and possibly worse. Please! Nancy Pelosi, buy a clue. When your president talks about turning the page, he doesn't mean to have the country and media embroiled and obsessed with Bush and company for ages ahead.  I don't want to see or hear or concern myself with anything Bush from now on. Leave them all to heaven.    Liz, Nancy's not the one who needs to buy a clue.  You're the damn fool who's clueless.  Now everyone was laughing at you two weeks ago when you were running with Tina Fey's p.r. that she and Sarah Palin were friends.  You got punked, Liz.  You're not going to get your credibility back by refusing to grasp the seriousness of what the Bully Boy did to this country.  You embarrass yourself.  You don't come off funny or hilarious.  You come off completely unconcerned with the law and more interested in covering up for torture than holding anyone accountable.  Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, really doesn't need your 'strong' 'editorials.'  Why don't you stick to who's sleeping with who and stay away from topics so clearly beyond your limited grasp?  For reality on the need to hold the previous administration accountable, see this by the Center for Constitutional Rights president Michael Ratner who also is a co-host of Law & Disorder along with Dalia Hashad, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith.  And on Guantanamo, Barack's last public statements were they he would close it but would move the prisoners elsewhere. As Ava and I pointed out, "Believe it or not, the cry to close Guantanamo was not a cry for relocation. It was a cry for freedom. But Barack made clear to The Post that some people held at Guantanamo could not be convicted in a court of law because their 'confessions' resulted from torture." As Barack now indicates that even closing Guantanamo will take a year, the Center for Constitutional Right's Executive Director Vince Warren points out: "It only took days to put these men in Guantanamo, it shouldn't take a year to get them out."       RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Basra votes not to be autonomous and provincial elections" "NYC reporters 100% stupid" "gaza" "Hillary and the State Dept" "Mariah gets really scary and Bob Herbert joins her" "Thoughts on the not-so-special day" "Phoebe Snow, Isaiah, World Can't Wait" "Isaiah, Third " "We're all drinking like Christopher Hitchens now!" "THIS JUST IN! A NATION IN DENIAL!"

THIS JUST IN! A NATION IN DENIAL!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   THE NEW YORK TIMES ANNOUNCES "NATION IN CRISIS EMBRACES THE MOMENT" WHEN WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS: "NATION IN CRISIS GOES ON A BENDER."   WHILE THE NATION WENT ON THEIR BENDER DURING THE INAUGURATION, MICHELLE OBAMA'S DECISION TO WEAR A HOUSE COAT TO THE PUBLIC CEREMONY INDICATES SHE STARTED NIPPING IN THE WEE HOURS OF TUESDAY MORNING.   IN FAIRNESS, YOU WOULD AS WELL IF THE DAY PRIOR YOUR HUSBAND HAD MADE YOU AND THE KIDS WORK A SANTIATION RUN IN THE EXTREME COLD.     FROM THE TCI WIRE:   In the US, Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office today and Iraq Veterans Against the War issued the following:   IVAW members and chapters got together recently to produce an ad calling for an end to the war in Iraq. This ad will be broadcast a few minutes before Barack Obama takes the oath of office (at noon EST) on NBC in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Albuquerque, New York City, and Washington DC as a reminder that the war goes on, and that electing a new President is not enough to bring it to an end.    For supporting arguments and further information about the content of this ad, click here. IVAW would like to thank Baked Goods Productions, The Flobots and Beau Weaver for generously contributing their talent to create this ad.   Iraq Veterans Against the War depends upon the support of individuals in order to continue organizing for an end to the Iraq war, care for our veterans, and justice for the people of Iraq. 2009 will be a pivotal year for U.S. involvement in Iraq, and it is more important than ever that we keep the pressure on to bring this occupation to an end. Support IVAW, click here to make a donation now.     Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died of wounds suffered following an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad Jan. 18 at approximately 11 a.m."  M-NF announces the deaths (like the previous ones) and the Defense Department then follows by issuing the name after the fallen's survivors have been notified.  For example, Monday the Defense Dept announced, "The Department of Defense announced today the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Senior Airman Omar J. McKnight, 22, of Marrero, La., died Jan 17 as a result of a non-hostile incident in Balad, Iraq. He was assigned to the 6th Security Forces Squadron, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla."  The military's problem with that announcement is the death they identified was never announced by M-NF.  January has seen eight US service members deaths and the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 4229.   Friday Haitham Kadhim al-Husani was assassinated, shot dead in Baghdad.  Sunday  deaths included Hassan Zaidan al-Luhaibi. Jonny Dymond (BBC) reported that a Mosul suicide bombing claimed the life of the "vice- president of the Sunni National Dialogue bloc" who "was leading his party's campaign for provincial elections to be held at the end of this month." In addition, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) notee that al-Luhaibi's "son Falah is a parliament member". Sam Dagher (New York Times) explained al-Luhaibi "was barred from holding elected office because he had been a senior member of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party" and he had been "an army general who commanded Iraq's military academy.  He was among the senior officers involved in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and its long war with Iran in the 1980s."   Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) explained, "The attack occurred amid bitter competition between Sunni Arabs and Kurds for control of Nineveh province, one of four that includes areas claimed by both Arabs and Kurds."   Provincial elections -- which were supposed to take place no later than 2008 to meet the 'benchmark' -- are scheduled for January 31st.  Even if they take place, they still do not meet the 'benchmark' for progress because they are not taking place in all provinces.  Fourteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces will hold elections.  The United Nations has regularly and repeatedly warned that violence would most likely increase in Iraq as provincial elections approached.  AP's Kim Gamel and Hamza Hendawi explain that the elections are for 444 seats (444 from all 14 pvoinces) and that 14,431 people are competing for those seats.  Timothy Williams (NYT's International Herald Tribune) notes a new poll of Iraqis has found 41% of those surveyed cite a preference for secular candidates and 31% prefer candidates from religious parties. Though religious markings and artificats are not supposed to be used in the campaigns, Anthony Shadid reported today that "everyone from the Communist Party to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a powerful Shiite party, has resorted to Shiite imagery."  Saturday Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported that the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, was attempting to make the elections all about himself: "He is not on any ballot in the provincial elections scheduled for Jan. 31. But in agreeing to be the public image of the Coalition of the State of Law, a group of candidates running primarily on his record, Maliki has effectively turned the contest into a referendum on his rule. The elections will be the most crucial test so far of Maliki's attempt to bolster the central government's authority -- and his own. If he succeeds in establishing a nationwide base of local politicians ready to support him and the idea of centralized government, Maliki will have cemented his three-year transformation from little-known lawmaker to the most powerful Iraqi statesman since Saddam Hussein."  The following day, Timothy Williams and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) explained that al-Maliki had demanded that Abudel Haneen al-Amara be kicked out as the police chief in Wasit Province and be replaced with a successor hand picked by al-Maliki leading to huge objections including objections over the timing.  The reporters quoted a local council member, Sayyd Sattar al-Masqsusi, stating, "It's really not good to replace him at this time.  We called the minister of the interior himself and he didn't know about the replacement and was as surprised as we are.  Only God and Maliki know the reasons behind the change at this time."  Monday Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) explored Basra where elections are expected to continue and solidify "Shiite Islamic parties" control of the area. Meanwhile Sam Dagher (New York Times) explores Anbar Province and finds that the US backed and elevated tribes may take control in the elections.  Anbar is where the "Awakening" Councils were 'birthed' (created by tossing US money around).  Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) reports that the estimated 100,000 "Awakening" Council members are still not under Iraqi control and that the US is expected to continue paying the bulk of members until April when al-Maliki may finally pay the cost.  So come April, the Iraqi government might finally take over payment.  Strange.   April 8, 2008 during The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour, Senator Barabara Boxer brought up the thugs on the US payroll and noted $182 million a year was being paid by the US tax payers.  "Why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that program?" Boxer asked.  When US Ambassador Ryan Crocker tried to dance around the issue, Boxer stated, "I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . . I'm just asking you why we object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?"  Crocker's response was he would carry the suggestion back to Iraq.  The "Awakening" Councils were supposed to have been turned over to Iraqi control in November.  That has not taken place.  Nor is al-Maliki assuming the payment.  All this time later.   In more non-progress, Timothy Williams (NYT's International Herald Tribune) notes that yesterday Iraq's Parliament again delayed their vote on selecting a new Speaker and now intend to vote on the 4th of February.   December 23rd was when Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was relieved of his duties as Speaker.  All this time later and they still have no Speaker.     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "US still paying "Awakening" Council, Parliament has no speaker" "Iraq gears up for the provincial elections" "Kat's Korner: Phoebe Snow's Journey" "Iraq" "Norman Solomon: Damn Liar" "And the war drags on . . ." "Ralph Nader and Tariq Ali call out the slaughter" "Action at Justin Herman Plaza today" "Iraq and e-mails" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: A little perspective, please TV: Tragedies in real time Roundtable Naomi Wolf: The Feminist Myth (Ava and C.I.) We always knew he was a drama queen Bye, bye Dickster Crack a window, it's CODESTINK (Ava and C.I.) Susan Lindauer Highlights "THIS JUST IN! JOE CANNON LIKES HIS BOOZE!" "Joe Cannon tries to sleep it off"