Tuesday, May 17, 2011

THIS JUST IN! HE'S SUCH A REPUBLICAN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AT LAST THE NARCISSISM IS EXPLAINED.

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WENT TO MEMPHIS TO GIVE A COMMENCEMENT SPEECH TO HIGH SCHOOLERS. IN DOING SO, HE NOT ONLY ENCOURAGED THEM TO MISCONSTRUE THEIR OWN REALITY, HE TOLD HIS CREATION MYTH ONE MORE TIME.

LIKENING THE GRADUATES TO HIMSELF AND LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH, HE DECLARED, "NOBODY'S HANDED YOU A THING. BUT THAT ALSO MEANS THAT WHATEVER YOU ACCOMPLISH IN YOUR LIFE, YOU'LL HAVE EARNED IT."

NO ONE HANDED THEM A THING?

BARRY O HAD AN INTELLIGENT MOTHER WHO ENSURED NOT JUST THAT HE STUDIED BUT THAT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE. THAT WAS A GIFT.

MIGHT SOME OF THE GRADUATES IN MEMPHIS HAVE ALSO BEEN BLESSED WITH SIMILAR GIFTS?

MIGHT THEY HAVE BEEN BLESSED WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS -- INCLUDING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS -- WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO BECOME WHO THEY ARE?

AMERICA WORKS AS A NATION BECAUSE WE WORK AS A NATION. INSTEAD OF PROMOTING OUR COMMONALITIES, BARRY O WANTED TO PROMOTE EXCEPTIONALISM AND DENIAL -- HOW VERY REPUBLICAN OF HIM.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Al Sabaah reports Iraq's political blocs have agreed to address whether or not to extend the US military presence in Iraq. This reconsideration is at Nouri's request. Wednesday, Nouri al-Maliki raised the issue and said if 70% of the political players agreed to extend the US presence, then that's what would happen. As we've repeatedly noted, that's not an impossible to reach number. The Kurds would want them to stay -- and our statement on that is backed up by Fars News which reports today, "The Kurdistan Patriotic Union issued a statement on Sunday, asking the US military troops to extend their mission in Iraq." That's roughly a third of the Parliament right there. Aswat al-Iraq adds, "Most of political blocs in Kurdistan believed that the US withdrawal at the end of this year is unsuitable that will tense the security situation in the country and return of violence. Spokesman of the National Kurdistan Party, headed by President Jalal Talabani, Azad Jindiyani said to Aswat al-Iraq that 'the US withdrawal is unsuitable due to the delay in building up Iraqi forces and the existence of political problems in the country'."
The uninformed and deluded will continue to insist that Moqtada al-Sadr has power (Shi'ite leader of the small Sadr bloc). Let's provide the context they keep missing by dropping back to two reports on Moqtada's last attempt to stop US troops from staying, November 22, 2008. This is from Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post):
Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush.
The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement.
The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005.

And this is from Stephen Farrell's "Protests in Baghdad on U.S. Pact" (New York Times):

In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator's statue in scenes televised around the world.
While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr's stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement."
Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation."

Despite the protests, days later the SOFA would pass Parliament. If Moqtada had the power so many are convinced he had, the SOFA never would have gone through. And, in 2008, Moqtada was a lot more influential than he is today when he's concerned that many of his lieutenants are eager to lead and not follow.
One US view for staying? Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes ("former executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus and a professor of military history at Ohio State University") Peter Mansoor stating, "Let's be clear -- the reason we should stay is to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other, particularly the Kurds and the Arabs. We can couch it in whatever terms we want to but . . . they need us to protect them from themselves." To be clear, this site has always supported, and continues to, immediate and full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The US staying? November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament voted on the Status Of Forces Agreement (or those who bothered to show up -- many skipped the vote, for the record, 149 MPs voted in favor of the SOFA -- Parliament then had 275 members). As soon as it passed the Iraqi Parliament, the White House finally released a version of the SOFA.
Prior to the SOFA, each year the US and Iraq had to request that the UN mandate be renewed for the US military to legally operate on Iraqi soil. (This is the occupation. No UN mandate provided for the war itself.) The SOFA replaced the UN mandate. The UN mandate covered a variety of countries (including England and Australia) but it also put Iraq in a type of protective receivership. Nouri was prevented from gaining access to certain funds (among other things). This is why Nouri didn't want the UN mandate renewed.

When it was decided that the UN mandate would be ditched, every country that planned to stay in Iraq needed to negotiate their own contract (bilateral agreement) with Iraq. The US went with the SOFA.

The SOFA could run for three years, if neither side exercised their 'out clause.' Article 30 of the SOFA covers this noting in section one: "This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article." Either side could terminate the SOFA at any point but there was no immediate termination. Section 3 of Article 30 covered this: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect."
Lies were told from the beginning. For instance, in an attempt to clamp down on outrage and ensure it passed the Parliament, Nouri al-Maliki insisted the people would get a say in this. In fact, a referendum would be held in July 2009! That referendum never took place. It really didn't matter in terms of ending the SOFA right away. If it had taken place and the vote had been to end the SOFA and Nouri had immediately notified the US that Iraq was breaking the SOFA, the SOFA would end . . . one year after Nouri gave official notification.
The SOFA is a contract. Like any contract, it can expire, be renewed and it can be replaced. Expire? It would run through Decemeber 2011 and not be renewed (or replaced). Replaced? A new bilateral agreement could be agreed to by the US and Iraqi governments. Renewed (or extended)? That's Article 30, Section 2. We have repeatedly opposed efforts for the US Congress to praise the SOFA with meaningless 'honorary' bills. While Iraq's Parliament was able to vote on the SOFA, the US Congress had no say. The Bush White House yet again circumvented the US Constitution -- specifically the section on treaties (treaty clause), Article 22, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires the Senate's advise and consent on all treaties the US enters into with other countries. Barack Obama was 'outraged' that the Senate was being bypassed . . . until he became president-elect. At which point Barack (and Joe Biden) dropped their objection to the US Constitution being circumvented -- this despite Barack being one of the 13 co-sponsors of Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting the SOFA come before the Congress.
After it was a done deal, why did it matter?
Because (A) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Violating it is no minor thing. (B) It sets a precedent. (C) The SOFA can be extended.
And how is it extended? Article 30, Section 2, "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."
What does that mean?
It means that the precedent is Nouri's Cabinet and the Parliament have to sign off in Iraq while, in the US, only the White House has to want it.
I don't know how to make that any clearer. Offering that very basic legal analysis was controversial in 2008; however, events have backed up what we've said. It's only the most idiotic that can't grasp it today.

Enter Tom Bowman (NPR). Today on Morning Edition, he reports on one of two plans. But gets many things wrong. First, he's unaware -- or unwilling to pass on --that this is one of two plans currently. What he's covering is plan B for the US administration. It's their back up plan, not their preferred plan.

The preferred plan is extending the SOFA. If that doesn't happen, US forces that remain in Iraq -- and some will though Tom Bowman 'forgets' to include that aspect in his report -- will be under the State Dept's control. In addition, as Bowman report, there will be many contractors brought in (who will also be under the State Dept's control).
Throughout his report, Bowman repeatedly states as fact that all US troops leave Iraq at the end of this year. First off, they don't. Even under plan B (Bowman's topic), some remain in Iraq. (Bowman might need to attend Congressional hearings on this subject. If he had, he'd be well versed in this topic instead of flying blind. Here are two hearing you can refer to, the February 1st Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and the February 3rd Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.) Second, facts are what has happened. US troops have NOT left Iraq. Some may leave at the end of 2011, some may not. And with Iraqi blocs agreeing to discuss the issue, you'd think NPR would be concerned about their reporters getting the facts correct.
Bowman insists, "On the ground, it's the same story. American soldiers and Marines will leave." Marines will leave? What kind of a moron is Tom Bowman?
Who the hell does he think protects US Embassies around the world?
This is the Marine Embassy Guard Association's website. Tom Bowman should familiarize himself with the page since he obviously has no idea that it is the US Marines who protect US Embassies around the world. Let's give him a movie reference, maybe film will help him? When Jason Bourne enters the US Embassy in The Bourne Identity and quickly begins fighting American forces? Those are Marines. From About.com, "Marine Security Guards are responsible for providing security at about 125 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Those on MSG duty are primarily responsible for embassies' interior security, normally the lobby or main entrance. Guards are trained to react to terrorist acts as well as a variety of emergencies such as fires, riots, demonstrations and evacuations." They're trained at Marine Corps Base Quantico and you can click here for a story on the training written by Lance Cpl Skyler Tooker.
And it wouldn't be just three or five Marine guards under the Embassy in Baghdad's control. At this late date, you'd think a journalist would know what came before. For example, in February the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a 20 page report entitled [PDF format warning] "IRAQ: THE TRANSITION FROM A MILITARY MISSION TO A CIVILIAN-LED EFFORT." This section should be rather clear:
The State Department is scheduled to assume full security responsibilities in a still dangerous and unpredictable environment and must strike a difficult balance between maintaining a robust presence and providing sufficient level of security. In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassy in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance. But the size, scope, and structure of this presence remain undetermined, even at this late date. Perhaps most significantly, it is unclear what kind of security relationship the incoming Iraqi Government would like with the United States.
"In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassay in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance." Clear enough? The report offers the following three scenarios: 1) All US troops leave at the end of 2011 ("except for a limited Office of Secuirty Cooperation housed within the embassy") which would require the State Dept scale back their current plans. 2) Many US troops leave at the end of 2011 but the Office of Security Cooperation is expanded with "military forces" who will "provide logistical support for the Iraqi army, shore up administrative gaps within the Ministry of Defense, and prove 'behind the wire' capabilities". 3) A new security agreement is negotiated to allow the US military to continue in Iraq. ("This approach should only be considered if it comes at Iraq's request".)
Jane Arraf counts "about 150 marines" in Iraq after 2011 (if no extension takes place). I have no idea where she's getting her numbers (I'm not questioning her numbers) because when the US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and various heads of military and Robert Gates have publicly raised the issue to Congress, they haven't had a number. Carl Levin, in his role as Chair of the Armed Services Committee, has repeatedly noted that. Again, I don't question Jane Arraf's numbers but find it interesting that someone in the US military or (more likely) with the US Embassy in Baghdad is providing her with numbers when they've refused to do the same to the House or Senate Armed Services Committee or the Senate Foreign Affairs Committe (the chair of the latter, John Kerry, has also pursued this). Without an answer to that question, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimated the State Dept would need between $25 to 30 billion over the next five years for Iraq alone. Though the State Dept was quite happy to send Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Congress to fight their battle (and he was stupid enough to do it -- no head of any department is caught up enough in their own work to take on the work of another department), as they continued to insist they needed more money. As Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reported last February, the reality for the 2012 budget would be "about $10 billion" on Iraq alone -- as opposed to the $5.2 billion the State Dept tosses around to the press and public.
At a time when -- supposedly -- we're all having to make sacrifices, the State Dept wants a huge increase in funding and can't even provide solid numbers. The Iraq War has been a financial sink hole exactly because it was pay-as-you-go. That started under Bush. Though Barack promised there would be no more supplementals for war spending, they have continued. And when a Department asks for money but will not provide the details of how many US military forces and how many contractors it would cover, you have the recipe for further cost overruns -- at a time when the United States supposedly cannot afford it.
Equally important, Barack was supposed to usher in a new age of transparency in government -- his promise, take it up with him and that's not happening when the State Dept continues to conceal the very basic numbers involved from the citizens of the United States. Not only is there no transparency, there's an attitude of 'we don't answer to the American people.' While some of that attitude -- which needs to be dropped immediately -- can be pinned on the national security types who will be pulling the strings, that's no excuse and the State Dept needs to get its act together and remember it works for the American people.
More true than ever as Behrouz Saba (New American Media) reports today, "Three countries which have received billions in U.S. foreign aid -- Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- made the top ten list of the world's failed states, in a survey conducted by Foreign Policy magazine. Moreover, Transparency International reports that Iraq and Afghanistan are just about the most corrupt countries in the world -- edged out only by Myanmar and Somalia -- among the 178 nations rated. Pakistan ranks 143, just slightly better than Haiti and Iran."


Posted by at